rather than deinstitutionalizing the disabled. Here, however, Larkin seeks only to house four disabled individuals in a home which happens to be less than 1500 feet from anoth er AFC facility. The proposed AFC facility, and many more like it that are prohibited by the spacing requirement, do not threaten Michigan’s professed goal of deinstitutionali-zation. Because it sweeps in the vast majority of AFC facilities which do not seek to recreate an institutional setting, the spacing requirement is too broad, and is not tailored to the specific needs of the handicapped. In summary, MDSS’s justifications do not pass muster under the standard announced in Marbrunak. Therefore, the 1500-foot spacing requirement violates the FHAA and is preempted by it. Accord Horizon House, 804 F.Supp. at 700 (<HOLDING>). MDSS also has failed to provide an adequate
holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause holding that a 1000foot spacing requirement violates the fhaa holding that upon resentencing providing only a written opinion violates the open court requirement of  3553c holding that  16913a violates the commerce clause holding a judgment in the absence of notice violates due process rights