Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/1999

Home

Page 8--January 10, 1999 Z.B. The village agreed. However, it required the Olechs to pay for the cost of the hook up and to grant the village a 33-foot easement instead of the custom- ary 15-foot easement. The Olechs refused and went without water for three months. After three months, the village agreed to the smaller easement and hooked up the water. The Olechs sued the town for violating their equal protection rights, claim- ing the village treated them differently than it treated other residents. The Olechs claimed the village's motivation for the differential treatment was a previous lawsuit in which the Olechs won damages for the village's negligent actions. The Olechs claimed their successful lawsuit angered village officials. The village asked the court to dismiss the charges. The court granted the village's request, holding the Olechs didn't allege the town orchestrated a campaign of "official harassment." The Olechs appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The Olechs were entitled to a trial. The evidence suggestsd the village might have violated their equal protection rights. The O!echs presented evidence t5e village treated them differently than it treated other residents solely because, of their previous lawsuit. Uneven law enforcement.was not enough to'cause an equal protection violation; however, refusing to'perform a. legal obligation for no reason other than "baseless hatred" did violate the Equal Protectlon Clause. The town had a legal obliga- tion to provide water. The Equal Protection Clause didn't require the Olechs to show the village orchestrated a campaign of official harassment. It also didn't matter that the village's action was temporary. Going without water for three months was a serious deprivation. If the village could show it would have taken the same actions regardless of animus toward the Olechs, then it' would not have violated the Equal Protec- tion Clause. The village also argued the real cause of the residents' lack of water was their broken well, not the village's refusal to provide service. The court disagreed, stating every injury had many preceding conditions. According to the court, the village wasn't excused "on the ground that if some other, inno- cent condition hadn't been present (such as Columbus's discovery of America) no injury would have occurred." see also: Esmail v. Macrane, 53 F. 3d 176 (1995). Editor's Note: Although this case doesn't involve a zoning issueper se, it dem- onstrates the iml2ortance of acting impartially whenever you make a zoning decision. Often, the first thing a disgruntled landowner does when his or her ap£lication is denied is claim the zoning officials acted out of sheer vindictive- ness and without a legitimate government interest.