Adam Cmty. Ctr. v. City of Troy

Decision Date03 April 2019
Docket NumberCase No. 18-13481
Citation381 F.Supp.3d 887
Parties ADAM COMMUNITY CENTER, a domestic nonprofit corporation, a/k/a Adam Community (ACC), a domestic nonprofit corporation, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF TROY, a Michigan municipal corporation, Troy City Council, City of Troy Planning Commission, City of Troy Zoning Board of Appeals, and Daniel Agauas, Glen Clark, Thomas Desmond, David Eisenbacher, Orestis Kaltsounis, Padma Kupa, Dave Lambert, James McCauley, individually and in their official capacities as members of the Troy Zoning Board of Appeals, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

Amy V. Doukoure, Council on American Islamic Relations, Farmington Hills, MI, for Plaintiff.

Allan T. Motzny, Lori G. Bluhm, Troy City Law Department, Troy, MI, for Defendant.


Nancy G. Edmunds, United States District Judge

This action arises from the City of Troy Zoning Board of Appeals' denial of Plaintiff's application for a variance from local zoning regulations in order to utilize an existing commercial building as a mosque, gym, library, community center, and banquet hall. Plaintiff is suing the City of Troy, the Troy City Council, the City of Troy Planning Commission, and the City of Troy Zoning Board of Appeals along with the eight members of the zoning board of appeals in their official and individual capacities. In its complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA") as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on allegations that Defendants placed a substantial burden on Plaintiff's free exercise of religion and violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights.1

Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 5.) Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or alternatively, summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff opposes the motion. On March 12, 2018, the Court held a hearing in connection with the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion.

I. Background

Plaintiff Adam Community Center is a religious non-profit organization based in the City of Troy, Michigan.2 Plaintiff describes its members as individuals and families who reside and work within the City. Plaintiff specifically caters to members of the Islamic faith and currently provides religious and nonreligious classes that are open to all community members in an office building located in the City. However, Plaintiff alleges that it is unable to hold religious worship and holiday services at its current facility, and that there are no Muslim places of worship within the City. As a result, Plaintiff's community members must travel to various places outside of the City to engage in prayer and worship services.

Plaintiff alleges that since 2013 it has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain or construct a mosque or Muslim place of worship within the City. In one of these unsuccessful instances, Plaintiff describes being in the process of having a building approved as a community center with a small prayer space inside when a local resident complained to the City about the proposed use of the structure as a mosque. Plaintiff contends that the City delayed approval of its variance application for the property at issue, and ultimately, the property was sold to a different investor. In another instance, Plaintiff alleges that it attempted to purchase an existing church to use as a mosque. Plaintiff claims that after residents of the City found out about the purchase, they assembled a group of Christian investors to purchase the building at a price higher than what Plaintiff could afford.

Plaintiff alleges that the City and its officials have repeatedly shown animus or disdain towards Muslims throughout Plaintiff's efforts to obtain a mosque in the City. There are currently 73 approved places of worship within the City, which include Christian churches and Hindu temples. According to Plaintiff, none of the approved places of worship are a mosque or other Muslim religious institution.3

Plaintiff claims that in 2017 it presented several different potential properties to the City and sought advice as to which ones could be developed most easily as a place of worship. Plaintiff alleges that the City's planning department did not want to assist in reviewing the properties. Plaintiff further alleges that Paul Evans, a city employee, told Plaintiff it should probably look to neighboring cities such as Rochester, Michigan to find a suitable property for a mosque. According to Plaintiff, this is not the first time City officials indicated it would be better for Plaintiff to look elsewhere for a site to construct a mosque. Plaintiff states that since 2013, City officials have on several occasions indicated that there are no places left in the City to construct a mosque, while simultaneously approving the construction of several new Christian churches.

This lawsuit arises out of the City's most recent denial of a variance application submitted by Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that in an effort to provide for the religious needs of its members, and all of the Muslims in the City, it decided to purchase an existing commercial property which is the subject of this lawsuit. Plaintiff proposes to use this commercial building as a religious place of worship as well as a community center with a library, gymnasium, and a banquet hall. Plaintiff asserts that it needs to have a building that provides all of the foregoing amenities because there are only a few days of the week during which actual worship will take place.

The property purchased4 by Plaintiff to be utilized as a Mosque and community center is located at 3635 Rochester Road, Troy MI 48085.5 The property is flanked on two sides by other commercial properties, is fronted on one side by a major road, and the rear of the property abuts a line of residential properties. The property is fully developed as a commercial building, half of which is currently being used as a restaurant and banquet hall while the other half remains as an empty warehouse. Plaintiff alleges that prior to being utilized as a restaurant and warehouse, the subject property was utilized as a large-scale retail establishment known as DSW Shoe Warehouse.

The property is located within the general business district and is zoned for use as a general commercial building. According to the City's zoning regulations, places of worship are a use that is permitted as a matter of right within an area zoned for general business. Plaintiff alleges that the building is also permitted for A-3 type use, which Plaintiff claims allows the building to be used for large gatherings or assembly.

The property has 126 parking spaces—one more than is required by the commercial zoning regulations for use of the property as a restaurant. The parking lot and usable parking spaces currently reach the property lines on three sides of the property. The fourth property line abuts the City sidewalk and ingress to the parking lot. Plaintiff alleges that there is presently no setback for the parking spaces even though the zoning regulations require a 30 foot setback. The parking spaces thus run the entire length of the property line that abuts the residential district. The only buffer between the commercial property and the residential district is a six-foot brick wall. Plaintiff alleges that most commercial properties and all now existing places of worship along Rochester Road have parking up to the property line that abuts residential districts.

Although places of worship are permitted as a right within general business districts, in 2017, the City implemented special additional zoning regulations that apply to the use of a commercial building as a place of worship. Zoning ordinance Section 6.21(E) requires that all sides of a building utilized as a place of worship have a minimum of a fifty foot setback. Section 6.21(F) goes on to forbid parking in the setback areas fronting areas zoned for residential purposes and requires that any such setback area be landscaped. With respect to the property at issue in this lawsuit, Plaintiff claims that it is impossible to comply with the zoning ordinances for religious places of worship because: (1) there is only a ten foot setback in the front of the building that abuts the commercial road; (2) there is only a forty eight foot setback in the back of the building that is closest to the residential property; (3) there is no setback on the north side of the building that abuts another commercial property because that is not required for commercial buildings; and (4) compliance with the limitations on parking within the setback requirement for the rear and side yards of the existing building would eliminate nearly all of the necessary parking spaces that are required under the zoning ordinance for a place of worship that size.

Because Plaintiff allegedly could not comply with the City's zoning regulations, Plaintiff applied for a variance. After receiving initial approval of its variance application by City employee Paul Evans, Plaintiff submitted its application for approval to the City of Troy Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA"). The application included the signature of the prior owner of the commercial property in question, which Plaintiff claims was required by the City. In its application, Plaintiff did not seek a variance in order to modify the existing footprint or characteristics of the property. Instead, Plaintiff's application sought a variance from the setback regulations specifically applicable to places of worship.

On June 19, 2018, the ZBA held a public hearing on Plaintiff's variance application. Several community members as well as Plaintiff's counsel spoke at the hearing. Ultimately, the ZBA unanimously denied Plai...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Adam Cmty. Ctr. v. City of Troy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • August 26, 2020
    ...from reasserting their qualified immunity defense with a more developed record on summary judgment. Adam Cmty. Ctr. v. City of Troy , 381 F. Supp. 3d 887, 905 (E.D. Mich. 2019). Discovery has progressed in this case and the issue of whether the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualifie......
  • United States v. City of Troy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • March 18, 2022
    ...that RLUIPA only requires a plaintiff to have "a legally recognized property interest in the property." Adam Cmty. Ctr. v. City of Troy , 381 F. Supp. 3d 887, 904 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (citing Muslim Cmty. Ass'n of Ann Arbor v. Pittsfield Charter Twp. , No. 12-CV-10803, 2015 WL 1286813, at *7 (......
  • Brown v. Montgomery Cnty. Mgmt.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • October 5, 2022
    ...Section 1983 for the medical treatment provided (or not provided) to pretrial inmates, see Adams v. Community Ctr. v. City of Troy, 381 F.Supp.3d 887, 897 (E.D. Mich. 2019), the instant complaint does not explain which “Montgomery County Legislative Bodies” were responsible for the alleged ......
  • Wooten v. City of Chattanooga
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • March 25, 2020 an agent," courts in this circuit have dismissed the officialcapacity defendant as redundant. See Adam Comm'y Ctr. v. City of Troy, 381 F. Supp. 3d 887, 899-900 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (collecting cases). Accordingly, Plaintiff's official capacity claims against Early are DISMISSED. The Court ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT