Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005

Home

g.g. July 25, 2005 -- Page 3 gious organizations" were required to operate under a special exception. As part of his duties as a rabbi, Konikov held meetings on Friday and Saturday, in addition to other meetings for studying the Torah and celebrating holidays. Konikov operated these religious meetings without the necessary permission. Konikov and the county debated the frequency of these meetings. Neigh- boring residents started to complain to the Code Enforcement Division. During an investigation, county investigators observed activity on the property 49 out of 68 days. Ultimately, the county found Konikov was operating an illegal synagogue on the property. Konikov continued his operations, and the county began to extract daily fines. Konikov sued, and the court ruled in favor of the county. Konikov-ap- pealed, arguing the code requirement was void for vagueness because it del- egated too much authority to those charged with enforcing it. -. DECISION: Reversed. Konikov presented evidence that tended to show the law did in fact del- egate too much authority to those charged with enforcing it. When a statute implicated First Amendment rights, the court could con- sider the risk of arbitrary enforcement -- the possibility that the statute would' chili expression. Two members of the Code Enforcement Division differed in their opinion of what frequency of religious meetings would trigger a violation. According to Officer Caneda, two meetings per week would not trigger a violation, but three probably would. George LaPorte, the manager of the divi- sion, stated that even one meeting a week could constitute a violation. Although the officers did not make a f'mal determination of what consti- tuted a violation, they had discretiOn to initiate an investigation into a possible violation, which could lead to. discriminatory enforcement. Because Konikov prgduced'evidence the code had an inherent risk of dis- criminatory enforcement, the code was void for vagueness. Therefore, the code requirement was unconstitutional. see also: Midrash Sephardi Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214 (2004). see also: United States v. Fisher, 289 F. 3d 132.~ (2002).. Conditional Use Permit -- Landowner claims conditional use permit a property interest subject to takings law Argues town's revocation unconstitutional Citation: Rainbow Springs Golf Company Inc. v. Town of Mukwonago, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 2, No. 2004AP1771 (2005) W~SCONSIN (06/01/05) -- Rainbow Springs Golf Company Inc. operated a property with two golf courses, a restaurant, and a haunted hotel under the allowance of a conditional use permit granted in 1981. 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 221