Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2017

Home

November 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 21 Zoning Bulletin zone, which could be "inconvenient," but was "not substantially burdensome," particularly given that Milosavlejevic had experience in the construction busi- ness and owned additional properties. With regard to Milosavlejevic's claim under the equal terms provision of RLUIPA, the court agreed with the City that, even if Milosavlejevic qualified as a "religious assembly or institution," he failed to demonstrate that he was treated less than equal to similarly situated applicants. The court found that Milosavlejevic failed to "offer a suitable comparator." He had compared his proposed chapel to utility towers that had been approved at a height greater than 30 feet, but the court found that "[u]tility towers are not suitable compara- tors to chapels" as they "serve completely different purposes" and are "located within different City zones with different zoning criteria." See also: International Church of Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro, 673 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir: 2011). Case Note: Milosavlejevic had also brought a Section 1983 claim, alleging that the City's vari- ance denial violated his right to free exercise of religionand equal protection. The court rejected those claims also, finding that: the Section 1983 claims relied on the same, inadequate facts and evidence as Milosavlejevic's RLUIPA claims; and that Milosavlejevic "fail[ed] to demonstrate either unequal treatment or any racial animus" by the City in the denial of the variance. Moreover, the court emphasized that Milosavlejevic's discrimination clairn were "undermined by the fact that his variance application met only two of eight mandatory criteria for granting variances." Rezoning/Discrimination—Village's rezoning of parcel is challenged as violating federal Fair. Housing Act Opponents say an alternative zoning designation would have had allowed for multi -family housing and thus had a less discriminatory effect on minorities Citation: MHANY Management, Inc. v. County of Nassau, 2017 WL 4174787 (E.D. N.Y. 2017) NEW YORK (09/19/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a vil- lage, in rezoning a parcel of land, was liable under the federal Fair Housing Act based on disparate impact and disparate treatment. More specifically, it addressed whether the "substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests" proffered by the village in support of its zoning change "could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect." The Background/Facts: The Village of Garden City (the "Village") 6 © 2017 Thomson Reuters