The U.S. government has entered into a consent agreement with a homeowners association in Snowmass Village after a federal complaint alleged that the group violated the Fair Housing Act by denying an emotional support dog to a resident.

Jason Neilson, who owns one of the 27 units in Creekside Condominiums, and his partner Kirsten Swick brought home the dog on Dec. 14, 2016. Swick has depression and anxiety that are substantial impairments, according to a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for Colorado. In a letter required by the homeowners association board of managers, a licensed psychologist attested that Swick’s “psychiatric disability severely limits her ability to tolerate loneliness.”

Creekside allowed one cat per unit as well as service animals, provided there was “reliable documentation of a disability and their disability related need for a service animal.”

However, between January and July 2017 the board rejected the request for the dog multiple times and fined Neilson and Swick $3,650. Board members asked for “authentic letters on authentic medical stationery,” according to the complaint. The board was not satisfied with the documentation that the two residents did submit .

“Despite the fact that Neilson and Swick complied with the board’s request that the emotional support animal not stay at Creekside, the board continued to levy fines against Neilson and Swick,” U.S. Attorney Jason R. Dunn wrote in the complaint.

Only after an attorney became involved did the board acquiesce.

In October, the board e-mailed all homeowners informing them of a $500 charge for legal expenses and blamed Neilson and Swick.

“The Board granted ‘reasonable accommodation’ for an [emotional support animal] and rescinded all fines for the homeowner, Jason Neilson. Jason has an attorney who has continued to threaten the HOA with litigation,” they wrote. “We hope this clears up any questions you might have about this special assessment.”

On Nov. 27, 2017, Neilson and Swick filed a housing discrimination complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. An investigation found reasonable cause to believe that discrimination had occurred.

A 2013 guidance document from HUD explains that “An assistance animal is not a pet. It is an animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person’s disability.”

The department wrote that housing providers should evaluate a request for reasonable accommodation by asking, “Does the person seeking to use and live with the animal have a disability — i.e., a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities?”

Landlords could deny the request if there was an undue financial burden, a threat to the health and safety of residents from the animal, or property damage by the animal.

The Creekside board of managers agreed through the consent order not to “coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person” making use of the Fair Housing Act. Board members will also undergo at least two hours of training on the law. The U.S. government will also monitor any fair housing complaints against Creekside for three years.

Within 30 days, the board must also apologize to Neilson and Swick and pay them $50,000.