Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2007

Home

(:' ( Z.B. Speciallssue: :B.iweekly Edition - Page 7 the owner of the second parcel, so the difference in treatment did not violate his equal protection rights. see also: Lamar County v. E. T. Carlyle Co.,\ 594 S.E.2d 335- (2004). see also: Cherokee County v. GreaterAtlanta, 566 S.E.2d 470 (2002). Church's plans continuously denied. Church claims denials violated equ.al protl!ction rights Citation: The Cathedral Church of the Intereessor v. The Incorporated Village of Malverne, u.s. District Courtfor the Eastern District of New York, No. CV. 02-2989 (TCP)(MO) NEW YORK - The Cattl~dral Church pfthe Tp,tercessor was a nonprofit religious corporation located in a residential~onein tJ;re village of Malveme. As a result of the church's gro\Vth, it sttbmitted plans to the village for a 5, 700-square- foot expansion. On June 19, 1998, the architectural review board (ARB) held a hearing on the church'S application; however, the ARB allegedly failed to render a timely decision. On April 28, 1999, the church submitted ~ new plan for a smaller expansion, but the village building department denied theapplication, stating that the expan- sion was for a business use, which was not permitted in a residential zone. - The church argued that the denial of the pl1ilding 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 chqrch' s application, and again deter- mined that the expansion constituted a busine~s 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 r~vised plans, tlle ARB required the church to make more revisions to its plans. Eventually, a building permit was iss~ed to the church; however, the church alleged that several members of the building department continuously delayed the. consttuction .and required new plans. The church s:ued the village, arguing t~at its actions violated the Equal Protection Clause. The village requ~sted thecourtto dismiss the case. DECISION: Request to dismiss granted. The village did not violate the church's equal protection rights. The Equal Protection Clause r~quired ithat no state "shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections ofthe laws." The church did not challenge the validity of the zoning regulations; rather the church alleged that the zoning laws were applied ilia discriminatory matter. To suc- ceed on this claim, the church had to showtthat itwas selectively treated, as compared with others similarly situated, and that the selective treatment was @2006 West, a Thomson business. Quinlan™iis a Thomson West bra.nd. Any reproduction is prohibited. 163