I just posted that article to the Facebook page that's part of my website/blog and also sent the journalist an email with some additional information to pass along to the family. The dog is, in fact, neither considered a Service Dog nor is he considered a Therapy Dog under the definition of the terms. What the dog is is an Emotional Support Animal or ESA.
A Service Dog is a dog specifically trained to do at least three demonstrable (as in, on command) tasks for a person who is considered to be legally, and not just medically, disabled.
A Therapy Dog is the pet of its owner/handler who has been trained (and often certified and/or registered with an organization) to interact with people other than the owner/handler during scheduled visits to specific facilities, such as old folks' homes, schools, women's shelters, etc.
An Emotional Support Animal is the per of its owner/handler who is suffering from a disability, commonly depression, and has been prescribed or recommended by that person's doctor, usually with a letter.
The thing is, Emotional Support Animals DO HAVE special accommodation when it comes to housing under the Fair Housing Act, which means that the Homeowner's Association in this case would not be able to deny the dog if the dog was prescribed by the doctor and is serving the person as an Emotional Support Animal.
I sent the journalist who wrote the story some information on what the differences between ESA's and Service Dogs are, as well as a number of links on case law where people with ESA's have gone to court over housing discrimination, and a nice PDF presentation by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law that provides more information that would be useful for the family in this case. (That link is below.)