Irshad Learning Ctr. v. Cnty. of DuPage

• Decision Date: 28 March 2011
• Docket Number: No. 10 C 2168.,10 C 2168.
• Citation: 804 F.Supp.2d 697
• Parties: IRSHAD LEARNING CENTER, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF DuPAGE, and Robert J. Schillerstrom, Robert J. Kartholl, Jr., John Hakim, Barry Ketter, Tom Laz, Michael Loftus, Jim McNamara, Jack L. Murphy, John Curran, Dirk Enger, Paul Fichtner, Rita Gonzalez, J.R. McBride, Michael McMahon, Debra Olson, Patrick O'Shea, Donald Puchalski, Jim Zay, in their individual capacities, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

804 F.Supp.2d 697

IRSHAD LEARNING CENTER, Plaintiff,

v.COUNTY OF DuPAGE, and Robert J. Schillerstrom, Robert J. Kartholl, Jr., John Hakim, Barry Ketter, Tom Laz, Michael Loftus, Jim McNamara, Jack L. Murphy, John Curran, Dirk Enger, Paul Fichtner, Rita Gonzalez, J.R. McBride, Michael McMahon, Debra Olson, Patrick O'Shea, Donald Puchalski, Jim Zay, in their individual capacities, Defendants.

No. 10 C 2168.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

March 28, 2011.

Kevin R. Vodak, Council On American–Islamic Relations, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Thomas F. Downing, Anthony Edward Hayman, Mary Ann Fleming, DuPage County State's Attorney's Office, Wheaton, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

REBECCA R. PALLMEYER, District Judge.

Irshad Learning Center, a Muslim religious and educational group, seeks a conditional use permit in order to use property in unincorporated DuPage County for religious services and educational purposes. DuPage officials have denied the request. In this lawsuit, Irshad alleges that the denial violates Irshad's rights under the United States Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). Defendants—the County of DuPage; County Board Chairman Robert Schillerstrom; Zoning Board of Appeals members Robert J. Kartholl, Jr., John Hakim, Barry A. Ketter, Tom Laz, Michael Loftus, Jim McNamara, and Jack L. Murphy; and County Board members John Curran, Dirk Enger, Paul Fichtner, Rita Gonzalez, J.R. McBride, Michael McMahon, Debra Olson, Patrick O'Shea, Donald Puchalski, and Jim Zay—move to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, to strike certain allegations and claims, and to dismiss Defendants in their individual capacities. The court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss the individual capacity claims, dismisses Counts IV and XI for failure to state a claim, and strikes Count VI. Defendants' motion is otherwise denied.

BACKGROUND

Irshad Learning Center (“Irshad” or “Plaintiff”) is a 75–member religious organization. Irshad currently conducts a Thursday evening prayer service at College of DuPage facilities and a Saturday afternoon youth education session at the Islamic Foundation School in Villa Park, Illinois. (Compl. ¶¶ 36–37.) In March 2008, Irshad purchased property at 25W030 75th Street, in unincorporated DuPage County, for use as a place of religious worship and education. ( Id. ¶¶ 5, 36–38.)

Plaintiff's property consists of 2.9 acres, including a single-family residence that was converted by its previous owner into a private school. ( Id. ¶ 42.) The previous owner operated a private school on the premises from 1994 to 2008, known as the Balkwill School. ( Id.) In 2005, the County Board granted a conditional use permit for the property allowing the operation of a private school with up to 65 students, aged three to the sixth grade, and five staff members. ( Id. ¶ 43; Zoning Ordinance 5146–05, Ex. D. to Mot. to Dismiss [hereinafter “Balkwill Zoning Ordinance”] at 2, 6.) It is unclear whether the Balkwill School had received a conditional use permit prior to 2005, although the 2005 ordinance references a 2001 public hearing on a previous zoning ordinance. (Balkwill Zoning Ordinance ¶ 1.) The Balkwill School's hours of operation were limited by the conditional use ordinance from 7:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Monday to Friday. ( Id. at 6.) The Balkwill School site included seven “required” parking spaces, ( id. ¶ 7), “in the front of the home,” (Compl. ¶ 44)—apparently in the driveway area near the home's front door, although it is not precisely clear from the record where these were located. Neither party disputes that Irshad may use the property under the exact same conditions that the DuPage County Board approved for the Balkwill School. ( See Balkwill Zoning Ordinance [listing conditions upon which the conditional use was approved and including a site plan of the property to which the Balkwill School was required to adhere].)

Zoning procedures in DuPage County involve four different entities: the Department of Economic Development and Planning (“Planning Department”); the Zoning Board of Appeals ¹ (“ZBA”); the County Development Committee (“CDC”) of the County Board; and the County Board. Those seeking zoning relief must first file their application with the Zoning Board of Appeals.² Zoning staff may assist an applicant in completing his/her application, and will advise applicants of the “requirements and standards for zoning relief.” Zoning Procedures at 1. The ZBA then schedules a public hearing on the proposed application at which the petitioner or an agent must present testimony concerning the proposed zoning relief. Id. at 4. The public hearing must begin no later than sixty days after the application is submitted, and must be concluded no later than 120 days after the application is submitted, with some enumerated exceptions. DuPage County Code 37–1415(A). Questions may be directed at petitioner from zoning staff, ZBA members, and members of the public. Zoning Procedures at 4. The ZBA then makes a recommendation on the application to the County Development Committee, and the County Development Committee makes a recommendation to the County Board, which renders a final decision. Id. The CDC may also opt to remand a petition to the ZBA “for reconsideration of its vote where significant new information has been made available.” Id. at 13.

Plaintiff first filed a conditional use application for use of the property as a “learning center” on August 19, 2008, requesting a variance to allow for parking in the front yard and side yard of the property. (Compl. ¶ 67.) The County Zoning Administrator, a member of the Planning Department, met with Plaintiff and suggested Plaintiff withdraw its application as a “learning center” and re-file as a “religious institution,” and that it remove the variance request. ( Id. ¶¶ 68, 69.) Plaintiff did so, and re-filed on December 11, 2008. ( Id. ¶ 69.) The application requested a permit that would allow use of the property for religious services by 100 individuals, 27 parking spaces, and 12 additional parking spaces that could be constructed if deemed necessary. ( Id. ¶ 70.) It is not entirely clear from the record, but it appears the additional parking spaces would be in the area near the front of the home (rather than the front yard), in the same area where the Balkwill School maintained its parking spaces and driveway, which would apparently negate the need for a variance. ( Id. ¶¶ 44,107(a).) Plaintiff planned to continue using the existing structure, which had already been found compliant with all relevant codes. ( Id. ¶¶ 70,71.) Plaintiff held “open door” meetings with neighbors at the property on November 18, 2008 and January 13, 2009; it is unclear what transpired at those meetings or whether any record of them exists. ( Id. ¶ 73.)

The DuPage County Zoning Board of Appeals held its first public hearing on the conditional use application on February 26, 2009. ( Id. ¶ 74.) Dan Wallace, a representative of neighbors objecting to the application, stated his concern that Plaintiff would grow in size, and that Plaintiff would need to expand the property's structure in the future. ( Id. ¶¶ 76–77.) ZBA member John Hakim asked whether “any animal sacrifices” would take place at the property. ( Id. ¶ 75.) The ZBA continued its meeting until March 12, 2009, to allow Plaintiff to respond to the concerns raised at the initial meeting. ( Id. ¶ 79.) Plaintiff did respond to the objections, submitting, prior to the March 12 meeting, letters from the owners of facilities Plaintiff had used in the past, which commended the organization, noted that there had been no complaints, and offered to answer any additional questions. ( Id. ¶¶ 80, 82.) Plaintiff also agreed to a 10:30 p.m. end time for any worship services. ( Id. ¶ 84.) The ZBA continued the hearing until May 14, 2009, at which time the ZBA held its final public hearing on Plaintiff's application. ( Id. ¶¶ 87–89.) Plaintiff does not offer details of this meeting, instead alleging only that “objectors continued to emphasize Speculative Use.” ( Id. ¶ 88.) On June 4, 2009, the ZBA unanimously recommended denial of the application to the County Board. ( Id. ¶ 90.) ZBA Chairman Kartholl observed (contrary to the Zoning Administrator's earlier recommendation to Plaintiff) that the application should have been made as a “learning center” rather than as a “religious institution.” ( Id. ¶ 93.)

The County Development Committee met on July 7, 2009, and voted unanimously to remand the application to the ZBA to “issue findings in accordance with the petition that has been filed by the petitioner and include adopted rationale and explanation for findings as they have been submitted.” ( Id. ¶ 95.) At the remand hearing on August 6, 2009, ZBA Chairman Kartholl explained that the CDC “remanded the case to us so that the board could clarify its findings of fact in the matter.” ( Id. ¶¶ 96, 97.) The ZBA continued that hearing until September 10, 2009, at which time the ZBA again unanimously voted to recommend denial of the application. ( Id. ¶¶ 97, 98.) At that meeting, Kartholl said that Plaintiff did not present “any sort of live testimony” during the prior hearings, which Plaintiff contends is “contrary to the clear record before the ZBA.” ( Id. ¶ 100.) The ZBA included in its findings of fact that 250 people would attend religious services, and that 100 parking spaces would be needed, estimates that Plaintiff alleges do not appear anywhere in the application. ( Id. ¶ 103.)

The County Development Committee met again on October 20, 2009, and voted unanimously to approve an amended application that included twelve additional conditions, including restricting parking to 27 spaces, and requiring that worship services end at 10:30 p.m. ( Id. ¶ 104.) The DuPage County Board tabled consideration of the application at its October...