Laserfiche WebLink
<br />July 1, 2007 I Volume 1 I No. 13 <br /> <br />variances. The board countered that Aubrey's claims were barred <br />based on a procedural premise, but the coUrt allowed the case to be <br />heard because it involved a "substantial" public interest. <br />Under the township's development ordinance, a shopping center <br />was defined as a group of commercial establishments that: 1) were <br />planned, constructed and managed as a total entity, and 2) included <br />"on-site customer and employee parking, loading areas, common de- <br />sign features, and semi-enclosed or enclosed customer walkways adja- <br />cent to the establishments." Aubrey claimed that AlG failed to present <br />any evidence that the project would be managed as a total entity or <br />that it would have the necessary walkways. <br />However, Aubrey could not support his claims by any evidence <br />from the record. Tne court found the board had determined that AlG <br />presented sufficient information to establish that the project fell within <br />the definition of a shopping center under the development ordinance. <br />Absent evidence to the contrary, the court had to give deference to the <br />board's conclusion. <br />With regard to the variance issue, the court found that the board <br />correctly determined this matter as well. The decision of the lower <br />court was affirmed. <br /> <br />First Amendment-Resident claims ordinances limit his <br />ability to perform charitable work <br /> <br />Argues ordinances target homeless, restrict rreedomof religion <br /> <br />Citation: Knauss v. City of Phoenix, Neighborhood Preservation Div., <br />2007 WL 1655522 (D. Ariz. 2007) <br /> <br />i\RIZONA (06/06/07)-Knauss lived in Phoenix and was "an ac- <br />tive volunteer and financial contributor to several private and church <br />programs helping the needy." One initiative in which he participated <br />involved providing refreshments to the homeless while they waited <br />outside of a church for services that the church provided. The city <br />cited the church for violating a section of the zoning ordinaJ.""1ce re- <br />latedto charitable outdoor food outside. <br />Another program involved a different church that provided lunches <br />to the public; many of the lunches were served to the homeless. The <br />city cited that church for violation of a different ordinance that pro- <br />hibited the serving of lunches in a residential area. <br />Knauss filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging that these ordi- <br />nances and other like them targeted the homeless and deprived them <br />of constitutional rights. Among other claims, Knauss argued that the <br />ordinances violated: the freedom of religion, equal protection, cruel <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />165 <br />