Candlehouse, Inc. v. Town of Vestal

2013 WL 1867114 (2013)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Candlehouse, Inc. v. Town of Vestal

United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
2013 WL 1867114 (2013)

  • Written by Tanya Munson, JD

Facts

Candlehouse, Inc. (plaintiff) operated Candlehouse Teen Challenge, a Christian nonprofit organization that provided faith-based residential treatment to young women struggling with addiction or emotional disorders. Candlehouse purchased two properties formerly used as a church and church campus in the town of Vestal, New York (defendant). Candlehouse intended to use the property as a church and dormitory-style residence for 12 future students who participated in the program. The area where the property was located was designated as a residential district for zoning purposes. Vestal’s zoning code permitted properties in the residential district to be used for one-family homes or boarding houses with a maximum of two transient occupants. The code prohibited the use of land in the residential district for boarding houses, charitable institutions, and multi-family dwellings. Candlehouse argued to the code enforcement officer that the proposed use of the property constituted the functional equivalent of a family under the town code. The enforcement officer responded that Candlehouse did not meet the functional equivalent of a family and thus did not comport with the town’s zoning code. Candlehouse appealed to the town’s zoning board of appeals, but the zoning board ultimately agreed with the code enforcement officer. Candlehouse argued to the board that its program was protected by the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and that Vestal should grant a reasonable accommodation by waiving or amending the zoning ordinance to permit Candlehouse’s use. Candlehouse also alleged that Vestal’s restriction on its use of the premises violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). Vestal refused, and Candlehouse sued in district court alleging Vestal violated the FHA, ADA, and RLUIPA.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Peebles, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 833,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership