Daytona Rescue Mission, Inc. v. City of Daytona Beach

• Decision Date: 12 May 1995
• Docket Number: No. 94-0575-CIV-ORL-18.,94-0575-CIV-ORL-18.
• Citation: 885 F. Supp. 1554
• Parties: DAYTONA RESCUE MISSION, INC. & Gabriel J. Varga, individually, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH, & the City of Daytona Beach City Commission, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

885 F. Supp. 1554

DAYTONA RESCUE MISSION, INC. & Gabriel J. Varga, individually, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH, & the City of Daytona Beach City Commission, Defendants.

No. 94-0575-CIV-ORL-18.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division.

May 12, 1995.

Mathew D. Staver, Frederick H. Nelson, Staver & Associates, Orlando, FL, H. Robert Showers, J. Matthew Szymanski, Gammon & Grange, P.C., McLean, VA, for plaintiffs.

Marie Simone Hartman, City of Daytona Beach, Daytona Beach, FL, for defendants.

ORDER

G. KENDALL SHARP, District Judge.

Daytona Rescue Mission, Inc. (DRM) and Gabriel J. Varga (Varga) bring this action against the City of Daytona Beach (City) and the City of Daytona Beach City Commission (Commission) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb-2000bb-4, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. DRM and Varga assert that the City code violates their rights under the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and RFRA. The City and Commission filed a motion for summary judgment. DRM and Varga responded in opposition. Subsequently, DRM and Varga filed a motion for summary judgment to which the City and the Commission responded in opposition. Based on a review of the case file and relevant law, the court grants summary judgment in favor of the City and the Commission and denies the motion for summary judgment filed by DRM and Varga.

I. Facts

A. The Events

DRM is a non-profit religious corporation established and organized under the laws of the State of Florida in May 1992. DRM has federal tax exempt status as a church pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code. Varga is the founder, pastor, president and executive director of DRM. Presently, DRM is located at 910 Beville Road in Daytona Beach, Florida. At the Beville Road site, DRM provides food bags to the needy for consumption off premises. In addition, DRM regularly conducts communal worship services, provides counseling and children's services, and distributes clothing. DRM also provides meals and conducts worship services at other churches in the City and at City facilities.

Prior to founding DRM, Varga was the pastor of the Milwaukee Rescue Mission from 1978 to 1992. In April 1992, Varga met with the City's Director of Planning and Redevelopment, Gerald Langston (Langston), regarding Varga's intent to form DRM. Langston referred Varga to Saralee Lewis Morrissey (Morrissey) for assistance regarding potential sites for DRM. Between May 1992 and January 1993, Varga looked at numerous sites within the City for location of DRM. Varga pursued sites located at 800 Orange Avenue and 724 South Segrave and made offers on both properties. Although Varga's offer for the Orange Avenue location was refused, his offer for the Segrave property resulted in a contract for sale. In June 1993, Varga reached an agreement on the financing for the purchase of the Segrave site. On June 16, 1993, Varga filed an application for semi-public use for the Segrave site. (Doc. 34, Ex. 2.) On the application, the requested use was listed as "Church-Mission" in an area zoned M-1. DRM and Varga represented their proposed use of the Segrave site as a facility for worship services, daily housing of a limited number of homeless men, and daily feeding of homeless men including those who would not be sheltered at the facility.

The City Planning Board heard Varga's application for semi-public use at its July 22, 1993 meeting. At the meeting, Morrissey made a report to the Planning Board and identified the Segrave site as a vacant warehouse building and parking area. According to the meeting minutes, Morrissey stated that the warehouse building fronts on Segrave and is zoned M-1 (Local Industry) while the parking area fronts on Clark Street and is zoned R-3. In addition, the site was described as located in a mixed use area. Nearby property was described as being zoned T-2 (Tourist Accommodations and Offices), R-3, and BA (Business Automotive) with certain areas undeveloped and other areas developed as single and multi-family residential. Morrissey indicated that churches are permitted uses in both the M-1 and R-3 zoning districts but that the Land Development Code (LDC) provided that homeless shelters and food bank programs are not considered accessory uses. After hearing the applicant's presentation and comments by citizens, the Planning Board continued the matter until its August meeting. On August 26, 1993, the Planning Board heard the request and denied the application for semi-public use by a vote of seven to two. Subsequently, the matter went before the Commission on October 20, 1993. The Commission voted unanimously to deny the request for semi-public use. The October 20 Commission action was the final administrative action on the application for semi-public use.

B. The Zoning Regulations

The City adopted the LDC on May 5, 1993. (Doc. 34, Ex. 9.) Prior to the adoption of the LDC, land development was regulated by zoning ordinance 78-400. Under zoning ordinance 78-400, the City defined "Church and Religious Institutions" as "a building or set of buildings used for the sole purpose of worship and customarily related activities." (Doc. 34, Ex. 4.) In adopting the LDC, the following sentence was added to the definition of Church or Religious Institution: "Homeless shelters and food banks are not customarily related activities." The LDC provides that Churches and Religious Institutions shall be permitted as conditional uses in certain areas, including areas zoned R-3, BA, T and M-1 district and as a special use in any district subject to certain criteria. (Doc. 34, Ex. 9 at Article 17, Section 2.)

The LDC outlines the procedures and criteria for approval of public and semi-public uses in Article 4, sections 5 and 6. Section 5.3 provides that public or semi-public uses shall be approved upon findings that the use is necessary and the criteria provided for special uses in section 6.3 have been met. Some of the criteria include the following:

(a) The use shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

(b) The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use shall not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare.

(c) The use shall not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties for uses permitted in the district, and shall be consistent with the character of the immediate neighborhood.

(Doc. 34, Ex. 9 at Article 4 — Page 8.)

II. Legal Discussion

A. Standard for Summary Judgment

Summary judgment is authorized if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); accord Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). "The substantive law will identify which facts are material. Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. The moving party bears the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). In determining whether the moving party has satisfied its burden, the court considers all inferences drawn from the underlying facts in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolves all reasonable doubts against the moving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2513; see Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The moving party may rely solely on his pleadings to satisfy this burden. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "There is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. at 2511 (citations omitted).

B. Free Exercise of Religion

The City and the Commission assert that the court should apply the three-part test enunciated in Grosz v. City of Miami Beach, Fla., 721 F.2d 729 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 827, 105 S.Ct. 108, 83 L.Ed.2d 52 (1984), and recently applied in First Assembly of God of Naples, Fla., Inc. v. Collier Co., Fla., 20 F.3d 419 (11th Cir.), opinion modified on denial of reh'g, 27 F.3d 526 (11th Cir.1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 730, 130 L.Ed.2d 634 (1995), to determine whether a violation of the Free Exercise Clause exists. In applying the Grosz test, the City and the Commission argue that the code meets constitutional requirements. In opposition, DRM and Varga maintain that the City code violates their rights under the Free Exercise Clause.

First Assembly is a case in which a church converted a building on its property into a homeless shelter. First Assembly, 20 F.3d at 420. The property was zoned multi-family residential which permitted churches and their "customary accessory uses." Id. A county official charged that First Assembly's homeless shelter violated several zoning ordinances. Id. The Code Enforcement Board (CEB) held numerous hearings on the matter and determined that the shelter was not a "customary accessory use" of the church property and that the zoning and housing codes precluded the housing of the large number of people at the shelter. Id. Plaintiffs sued alleging that the zoning ordinances violated their First Amendment...