Civil Liberties For Urban Believers v. City Of Chicago

Facts

The Chicago Zoning Ordinance broadly divides the city into R, B, C, and M zones for residential, business, commercial, and manufacturing uses. Churches are permitted uses as of right in all R zones and are variations in the Nature of Special Uses in all B zones as well as C1, C2, C3, and C5 districts. All Special Uses, whether of a religious or nonreligious nature, require approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals ('ZBA') following a public hearing. Before a church may locate in a C4 district or an M zone, the Chicago City Council must vote in favor of a Map Amendment, effectively rezoning the targeted parcel. Civil Liberties for Urban Believers (P) is an unincorporated association of 40 to 50 religious or not-for-profit corporations ranging in size from 15 to 15,000 congregants. Five of these individual member churches joined P as plaintiffs in an action challenging the validity of the CZO. Christ Center efforts to get a special use permit are representative. Christ Center began meeting in a high school auditorium and located a suitable building at 1139-43 West Madison in Chicago. The building was located in a C district, and Christ Center promptly applied for a special use permit. Most neighbors favored a taxpaying entity in the neighborhood rather than a church, and Alderman Mazola stated that he would support the church's special use permit on any street but Madison. The special use permit was denied. Christ Center subsequently found a second building in an M district. The Chicago Department of Planning and Development informed Christ Center that it would oppose any rezoning application because the particular area was designated to become an entertainment area and the presence of a church would inhibit such development. Christ Center subsequently choose not to file an application for rezoning. In the fall of 1993, Christ Center obtained property at 4445 South King Drive, successfully obtained a special use permit and now operates a church at this location. Christ Center now claims that it paid substantial sums in attorney’s fees, appraisal fees, zoning application charges, title charges and other expenses attempting to find suitable property. Christian Bible, Mount Zion, Christian Covenant, and His Word all had similar problems. In February 2000, in response to Ps' remaining constitutional challenges to the CZO's designation of churches vis-a-vis various nonreligious assembly uses in B, C, and M zones, the City Council amended the CZO to require clubs, lodges, meeting halls, recreation buildings, and community centers to obtain Special Use approval in order to locate within any B and C zones and a Map Amendment in order to locate within any M zone. The amendments also (i) exempt churches from the requirement that a Special Use applicant affirmatively demonstrate that the proposed use 'is necessary for the public convenience at that location' and (ii) provide that a Special Use permit shall automatically issue in the event that the ZBA fails to render a decision within 120 days of the date of application. Several months thereafter, Congress reacted to the Supreme Court's decision in City of Boerne with the enactment of RLUIPA. Ps subsequently amended their complaint once more to include claims against Chicago pursuant to RLUIPA. Ps contend that the CZO and the administrative and legislative processes for obtaining Special Use, Map Amendment, and Planned Development approval violate Ps' rights to (i) free exercise of religion, speech, and assembly under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, (ii) equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Illinois Constitution, and (iii) procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In granting summary judgment in favor of D, the district court determined that the February 2000 amendments to the CZO removed 'any potential substantial burden' on religious exercise. It concluded that Chicago's zoning scheme is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose and thus constitutional. It also rejected due process claims, noting that City Council and ZBA legislative procedures and practices afforded Ps what minimal process is due in zoning cases. The district court denied Ps' motion, pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to reconsider its summary judgment. This appeal was taken.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.