Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin - March 10, 2010 ~ Volume 4 ~ No. 5 <br />~ ~jj First Amendment." The.court also found that: (2) the ZBA's denials of <br />Fxitz's variances were sufficient to state a claim for adverse action. The <br />court noted that the ZBA's denial of the vaziances duectly impacted <br />Fritz's ability to conduct her business in the manner of her choosing. <br />Therefore, the court found, the denials were "probably sufficient to state <br />a claim of retaliation inasmuch as the possibility of a zoning variance or <br />a signage variance necessary fox operating a business as planned would <br />deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising First Amendment <br />rights." The court further found that: (3) Fritz had "sufficiently alleged <br />that the denial of her zoning and signage variances was motivated at <br />least in part by her protected conduct at public meetings." <br />See also: Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2005). <br />See also: Thaddeus-X v..Blatter, 17S F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc). <br />Case Note: The court further explained the test as to the sufficiency <br />of a claim of an adverse action in the § 1983 retaliation context: "(T) <br />he test is whether a person of ordinary firmness would be deterred [by <br />the adverse action from engaging in constitutionally protected con- <br />duct~; actual deterrence on the part of the plaintiff is not necessary to <br />state a claim of adverse action." In other words, here, as to the suffr- <br />~ ~) ciency of her claim, it was irrelevant that Fritz was not deterred by the <br />variance denials but instead wntinued to publically speak against the <br />township. Again, the test was whether a "person of ordinary firmness <br />would be deterred." Howevey the court found they would. <br />Case Note: Although not discussed in this summazy, Fritz had. also <br />alleged that certain conversations between the township's Supervisor <br />and FBIC were adverse actions in the § 1983 retaliation context. <br />Residential Use-Neighbors challenge occupancy <br />of 11 college students' occupancy in a large <br />house <br />They azgue living arrangement constitutes a prohibited <br />boazding house, not a permitted household dwelling <br />Citation: Adams v. Town of Brunswick, 2010 ME 7, 2010 WL 354160 <br />(Me. 2010) <br />1. l MAINE (02/02/10)-This case involved interpretations of a zoning <br />ordinance's definitions of "dwelling units," "household," and "boarding <br />house." It addressed whether the-use of a house by eleven students in <br />® 2010 Thomson Reuters - 9 <br />_ .___ <br />35 <br />