In 2007, Daniel and Jaime Snyder plunked down more than a half-million dollars to buy a two-story home in the Summerset at Frick Park development in Squirrel Hill.

"We moved up from south Florida and we settled on this community because there were a lot of families here, a lot of children. It seemed like a friendly and fun atmosphere," Mr. Snyder, 54, said Friday.

But now the couple's dream location has become something of a nightmare for their youngest son, 18-month-old Jonah.

Born with congenital glaucoma, the child cannot stand direct sunlight, so his parents petitioned their neighborhood association for permission to put up a $5,000 awning on the front of their house.

The Summerset Neighborhood Association refused on aesthetic grounds.

So on Wednesday the Snyders took their case to federal court alleging a violation of the Fair Housing Act and its provisions for people with disabilities.

Now a judge will have to decide whether to force the association and the Summerset Design Review Board to modify their rules and allow the awning so Jonah can have the full run of his house and a second-story porch.

The couple's attorney, Beverly A. Block, said the law is clear: It is illegal to refuse "reasonable modifications" if they are "necessary to afford such person full enjoyment of the premises."

"They basically have entirely lost the benefit of having Jonah be able to play outside and freely go into his parents' bedroom for the spring and summer of 2011," Ms. Block said. "The question is, how much longer is this going to go on?"

Joshua Farber, president of the association's executive board, declined comment. So did Alan E. Johnson, the attorney who has represented both entities during a recent investigation by the Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, which concluded that the Snyders were facing discrimination.

But in a position statement filed by Mr. Johnson during the course of the human relations commission investigation, he wrote that a retractable awning was not reasonable or necessary, that it would violate the community's design code and that alternatives exist.

Mr. Snyder said the clash between his family and the association has turned ugly inside the planned community of several hundred homes.

Although the Snyders have support from friends and neighbors, some people who once waved no longer do so, he said. Others act like strangers. The suit speaks of neighbors chiding them for a dispute that reflects poorly on the neighborhood. And former acquaintances no longer return calls, texts or invitations.

"People just aren't as friendly. We've had some people say they were keeping their distance from us," Mr. Snyder said. "It's become very uncomfortable, to say the least."

This spring, when Jonah began walking, the Snyders installed black-out blinds. The home has southern exposure and is often sunny, and the master bedroom and its balcony face east.

"Restricting [Jonah's] movement away from these areas became increasingly difficult and unfair as [he] became more mobile and began to walk independently," the suit said. "The Snyders wanted [him] to be able to use and enjoy their master bedroom without first needing to ensure that the black-out blinds were closed."

The Snyders said they looked into various fixes to shade the bedroom and balcony. A porch swing covered by an umbrella was insufficient, the suit said.

In April, they asked permission to put up an awning, one that would be retracted at night and on cloudy days.

In June, the Snyders sent a letter in which they stated they considered options proposed by the board -- an umbrella or permanent roof on the balcony. The former suggestion, they said, was tried on their porch swing and did not work; the latter is "extreme and excessive."

"The reason we purchased this home was for its location. We paid a premium to have a home on Parkview Blvd. so we could enjoy the view ... Your suggestion is basically telling us that we shouldn't use portions of our home and we find that to be unreasonable," the Snyders wrote in their letter.

Later that month, the suit claims, as the Snyders were arguing and negotiating with the association, the group created a policy governing awnings -- one that allowed them in some cases, but never in the fronts of houses.

"Poof," Ms. Block said, "three months later during these discussions there turns out to be this amendment."

In July, the board denied the Snyders' request "due to insufficient information and a design proposal that does not conform to the original building design."

In his position statement, Mr. Johnson elaborated that such an awning "would add a permanent fixture to the front portion of the property inconsistent with the architectural theme of Summerset."

"Presumably, the child has his own bedroom, and complainants have not suggested any medical need of the child to use the master bedroom," Mr. Johnson wrote.

"Complainants' proposal would violate the Summerset design code.

However, as elaborated above, there are many alternative resolutions, consistent with the design code, that would offer the same protection, and at least some of these are no more expensive than the complainants' proposal."

The Snyders said they have explored all sorts of alternatives, some with costs of up to $40,000, and rejected all but the awning as "unsafe, oppressively expensive and impractical."

"For some outside party to dictate to a child, 'Well you're not going to be able to go there in your home,' it's callous, it's inhuman. Don't these people have any empathy? Don't they have any humanity?" Mr. Snyder said.

"They definitely have the money and the power behind them. They're being financed by an insurance company, and I'm just a guy fighting for my kid."

The Snyders are requesting a jury trial, an injunction forcing the association to permit the awning and compensatory and punitive damages.

First Published: October 15, 2011, 8:00 a.m.