Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/06/1998

Home

Z.B. December 10, 1997 -- Page 3 DECISION: Reversed; judgment for Banks and the city. Banks had absolute legislative immunity for introducing and voting on the rezoning ordinance and for requesting a continuance of the board's hearing. That Banks knew the church had contracted to buy the property had no impact on his immunity. Absolute immunity shielded a legislator's conduct even when that conduct was based on improper motives. When acting collectively to pursue the public good through legislation, legislators must be free to represent their constituents "without fear of outside interference" that would result in private lawsuits. Any restriction on a legislator's freedom undermined the public good by interfering with the rights of the people to representation in the democratic process. Introducing and voting on legislation were elements of the legislative process. A person engaged in such an act was entitled to absolute immunity. If legislators feared they would be subject to civil liability for their attempts to introduce new legislation or propose amendments, government would become stagnant -- changes would not be considered, let alone made. Absolute immunity didn't depend on the number of people that a law hap- pened to affect at the time of its passage. Although the initial effect of the zoning ordinance impacted only the church, the ordinance was a neutral, prospective rule that applied equally to all current and future owners of the property. Although the organization had agreed to buy the proper~y, it had no vested right to use the property for a church. Such a use required a special use permit, and there was no guarantee it would have gotten one. Even if Banks had not asked the board for a continuance, there was no guarantee the church would have received a special use permit. Property owners had no right to special use permits. The board, in its discretion, granted the continuances. The request to continue the hearings was inextricably intertwined with the legislative process of introducing and voting on the zoning ordinances and could not be separated from those legislative functions. see also: Thillens Inc. v. Community Currency Exchange Association of Illinois Inc., 729 F. 2d 1128 (1984). see also: Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951). Editor's Note: The court's decision also included an appeal by another city alderman. He had initiated a similar ordinance preventing a church from buying property and using it as a church in his ward. The outcome was identical for both appeals. Adult Entertainment-- Ordinance gives exotic dancing establishment six years to find new location Restaura~t Ro~v Associates v. Horr), CottnO', 489 S.E. 2d 641 (South Carolina) 2997 Thee Dollhouse was an exotic dancing establishment. When it opened in i988, it conformed to the current county zoning ordinance. That ordinance