Expert Witness Profiler

Category: Urban Planning Expert Witness

  • Urban Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on Municipal Zoning Practices

    Urban Planning Expert Allowed to Opine on Municipal Zoning Practices

    This case involves the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Defendant, the City of Springfield, prohibited Plaintiffs from operating a home for residents in recovery from drug or alcohol addiction. Defendant claimed their zoning ordinance prohibited the home from operating in an R-SF Zone because it is a “group home” under the City’s zoning code and there is another “group home” located within 1/4 mile. The City classified the home as a group home because the residents who occupy the home are in recovery from drug and alcohol abuse. The City denied Plaintiffs’ request for a reasonable accommodation under the FHA and ADA.

    Plaintiffs brought claims of failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, and disparate impact under the ADA and the FHA.

    Plaintiffs have disclosed three experts in this matter. Stephen D. Villavaso was disclosed as an expert in professional and urban planning. Andrea Stevens is a real estate agent, who Plaintiffs wish to have testify as to the number of residential listings in the City of Springfield during a given timeframe. Finally, John Majer was disclosed to provide expert opinions concerning the operation of residential group homes for substance abuse treatment.

    Defendant filed a motion to exclude the testimony of the proposed expert witnesses disclosed by Plaintiffs for the reason that their proposed testimony did not meet the requirements set forth in Rule 702.

    Urban Planning Expert Witness

    Stephen D. Villavaso, J.D., FAICP is a professional urban and regional planner and a land use/zoning attorney with over forty years of experience in city and regional planning, environmental regulations, land use law, public administration and zoning.

    Villavaso’s degrees include a Bachelor of Science in Economics and a Master of Urban and Regional Planning, both from the University of New Orleans, and a Juris Doctorate from Loyola University of New Orleans. He has served the Louisiana Chapter of the American Planning Association, with thirty-five years of service to the APA — receiving both the Chapter’s Leadership and Distinguished Service Awards along the way. He is the Past-President of the Louisiana Chapter of the American Planning Association.

    Get the full story on challenges to Stephen Villavaso’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Real Estate Expert Witness

    Andrea Stevens is a real estate agent affiliated with Keller Williams Realty Elevate in Joplin, Missouri. Stevens has been practicing as a real estate professional since 2021 and is licensed by the Missouri Real Estate Commission.

    Discover more cases with Andrea Stevens as an expert witness by ordering her comprehensive Expert Witness Profile report.

    Psychology Expert Witness

    John M. Majer, Ph.D. is a full Professor of Psychology at Harry S. Truman College and a Consultant for the Center for Community Research at DePaul University, in Chicago, Illinois.

    Majer has extensive research experience in the field of clinical-community psychology, mostly involving persons with substance use disorders and sober living homes.

    Want to know more about the challenges John Majer has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendant argued that the experts’ opinions are not based on reliable methodology, are not supported by sufficient facts or data, and are based upon theories that have not been tested.

    Stephen Villavaso is an expert in professional and urban planning, who offers opinions on municipal zoning practices, the City’s application of its ordinances, and the compatibility of the spacing requirements with accepted planning principles and DOJ/HUD guidance. Andrea Stevens is a licensed real estate professional, who analyzes residential housing market conditions in Springfield, including the availability of suitable properties during the relevant timeframe. Dr. John Majer is an expert in the operation of residential recovery housing, who provides insight into the therapeutic and operational requirements of recovery homes, as well as the practical implications of spacing requirements on their viability.

    This Court agreed that the arguments raised by Defendant’s motion go to credibility and the weight of the testimony which are subjects that may be raised during cross-examination.

    However, federal courts should limit their review to the materials that were presented to the local land use board while considering reasonable accommodation claims, except in circumstances where the board prevents applicants from presenting sufficient information. This general rule however, does not apply to disparate impact and disparate treatment discrimination claims.

    The Court found that the Plaintiffs were not prevented from providing the information they now seek to present. Plaintiffs were invited to resubmit their request to the proper individual, and asked to address several issues, which they chose to ignore when making their resubmission. Thus, the expert reports will be considered in the disparate impact and disparate treatment claims. The expert reports will, however, be excluded in the failure to accommodate claim.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant’s motion to exclude or limit the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses Stephen D. Villavaso, Andrea Stevens, and Dr. John Majer.

    Key Takeaway

    Plaintiffs’ experts may be relevant under Rule 702 and at this time, there is no basis to exclude them under Daubert. However, the Court excluded Plaintiffs’ expert testimony in the failure to accommodate claim because it was not presented to the City as part of Plaintiffs’ request for accommodation.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: New Beginning Sanctuary V. City Of Springfield, Missouri
    Docket Number: 6:23cv3336
    Court Name: United States District Court, Missouri Western
    Order Date: January 22, 2026

  • Urban Planning Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Sign Regulations

    Urban Planning Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Sign Regulations

    Plaintiffs Cozy Inn, Incorporated and its owner Stephen Howard sued the City of Salina, Kansas for constitutional violations after the City stopped Howard from painting a display on the side of the building that housed his restaurant.

    The artist Howard hired, Colin Benson, began painting the display on Friday, November 3, 2023. Three days later, however, Salina officials informed him that they believed the display was too large to be permitted under the City’s sign code. Then, because the officials determined that the display was a sign subject to the sign code’s regulations, they told Howard that the display would be too large to qualify for a sign permit and directed him to pause work on the display. The display is a sign, according to Salina, because it “pertains to or references the goods or services for sale.” In particular, Salina’s position is that the display “advertises hamburger, chopped onions, pickles, ketchup, and mustard” by depicting those images as part of the display. 

    Howard and Cozy Inn filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Salina’s expert witness, Mark White.

    Urban Planning Expert Witness

    S. Mark White is a planner and attorney recognized as an expert in zoning and subdivision law, form-based zoning and New Urbanism, land use and takings litigation, housing, development of comprehensive growth management plans, and implementation systems.

    He has a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning and has practiced as a professional planner for thirty-four (34) years.

    Want to know more about the challenges S. Mark White has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    White sought to offer seven opinions. To begin with, White stated that Salina’s sign code “establishes time, place and manner metrics that are not content-based.” His second opinion was that Salina’s sign code “is supported by substantial and compelling interests in the area of urban planning and code administration.” Moreover, White asserted that the sign code “directly and materially furthers its recited purposes,” “is not vague,” and “has numerous procedural safeguards.” He then opined that the sign code “is reasonable in scope in that it targets issues related to wall signs, without unnecessarily expanding its reach to artistic murals.” And finally, White said that the restrictions in Salina’s sign code “are reasonable, generally accepted regulations of the size, shape, placement, and design of signs.”

    Howard and Cozy Inn moved to exclude White as an expert at trial. To begin with, they argued that White’s opinions invaded the province of the factfinder by applying the law to the facts and making impermissible legal conclusions. Moreover, they argued that White’s opinions are unreliable because they “are based on inappropriate speculation and conjecture” and because they contradict a treatise that White authored.

    Analysis

    The Court agreed that White’s opinions largely mirror the legal standards that the issues in this lawsuit turn on. But it is unnecessary to entirely exclude White as an expert witness because the parties requested a bench trial. The concern that the Plaintiffs raise typically arises in cases that will be tried by a jury because it is important to ensure that experts do not “go so far as to usurp the exclusive function of the jury to weigh the evidence and determine credibility.”

    The Plaintiffs have not identified any authority excluding testimony as an impermissible legal conclusion in a bench trial. As a result, exclusion is not necessary because, to the extent White’s testimony stated impermissible legal conclusions, it can be ignored.

    Moreover, White bases his opinions on the knowledge and experience he has gained as “a planner and attorney recognized as an expert in zoning and subdivision law, form-based zoning and New Urbanism, land use and takings litigation, housing, development of comprehensive growth management plans, and implementation systems.”

    Second, White used reliable methods to evaluate the data he gathered through his experience and reach conclusions based on it. For example, White examined Salina’s sign code and comprehensive plan to explain the city’s purported justifications for its sign regulations are traffic safety, aesthetics, and public health. Then, he reviewed several studies and reports regarding the impact that signs and public art can have on those interests. And he concluded, relying on that data and his expertise, that Salina’s sign regulations served the purposes they are intended to serve.

    Salina’s contention that White’s opinions in this case differ from what he has previously said does not compel a different result. That his views may be seen as evolving or inconsistent goes to the weight, not the admissibility, of his testimony.

    Held

    The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to strike or exclude the opinions of S. Mark White.

    Key Takeaway:

    An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. White reviewed Salina’s sign code, its comprehensive plan, its purported interests, and other municipalities’ sign codes. This gave White sufficient facts and data on which he could rely to opine on the connection between Salina’s sign code and its proffered justification for its speech restrictions.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Cozy Inn, Incorporated Et Al V. Salina, Kansas, City Of
    Docket Number: 6:24cv1027
    Court Name: United States District Court for the District of Kansas
    Order Date: November 19, 2025