Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2005

Home

Page 4 --March 10, 2005 z.g. On April 28, 1999, the church submitted a new plan for a smaller expan- sion, but the village building department denied the application, stating that the expansion was for a business, use, which was not permitted in a residential zone. The church argued that the denial of the building permit was frivolous and made in bad faith, and the church resubmitted its application for a building permit and requested the village to abandon its assertion that the expansion constituted a business use. The ARB reconvened to consider the church's application, and again deter- mined that the expansion constituted a business use and 'informed the church that it had to obtain a variance from the zoning board. The zoning board then conducted a hearing and required the church to revise its plans to include off- street parking spaces. After the church resubmitted revised plans, the ARB required the church to make more revisions to its plans. Eventually, a building permit was issued to the church; however, the church alleged that several members of the building department continuously delayed the construction and required new plans. The church sued the village, arguing that its actions violated the Equal Protection Clause. The village requested the court to dismiss the case. DECISION: Request to dismiss granted. The village did not violate the church's equal protection rights. The Equal Protection Clause required that no state "shall deny to any per- son within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws." The church did not challenge the validity of the zoning regulations; rather the church alleged that the zoning laws were applied in a discriminatory matter. To succeed on this claim, the church had to show that it was selectively treated, as compared with others similarly situated, and that the selective treatment was motivated by intent to discriminate. The church was able to prove that'it was selectively treated from others similarly situation because the village imposed subjective, arbitrary, and unrea- sonable conditions and requirements upon the church that it had never im- posed on any other construction project of similar size or scope. However, the church failed' to satisfy the second element of the equal protection standard. The church failed to show that there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment or that' the village showed an intention to discriminate. There was no evidence that the village acted irrationally in ini- tially denying the proposal. Therefore, the church's allegations had to be dismissed. see also: Lisa's Par~. Ci~. Inc. v. Town of Henrietta, 183 F. 3d 12 (1999).. see also: Village ofWitIowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, t20 S. Ct. 1073, 145 L. Ed. 2d 1060 (2000). 150 © 2005 Quinlan PuBlishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more intormation please call (617) 542-0048.