Jesus Christ is the Answer Ministries, Inc. v. Balt. Cnty.
Citation | 303 F.Supp.3d 378 |
Decision Date | 27 March 2018 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. RDB–17–3010 |
Parties | JESUS CHRIST IS the ANSWER MINISTRIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Blair Lazarus Storzer, Roman Paul Storzer, Sieglinde Katherine Rath, Storzer & Associates, P.C., Washington, DC, Lawrence E. Schmidt, Smith Gildea and Schmidt, Towson, MD, for Plaintiffs.
James J. Nolan, Jr, Paul McLane Mayhew, R. Brady Locher, Baltimore County Office of Law, Towson, MD, for Defendants.
In the Fall of 2012, Plaintiff Reverend Lucy Ware ("Ware") began improvements on a single-dwelling home to convert it to a house of worship for Jesus Christ is the Answer Ministries, Inc. ("the Church") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). Upon learning that the improvements did not comply with the Baltimore County Zoning Regulations ("BCZR"), she filed a Petition for a Special Hearing and zoning variances with the Defendant Board of Appeals of Baltimore County ("the Board") to approve a site plan for the Church. The Board denied the Petition, finding in part that the plan did not minimally comply to the extent possible with certain BCZR requirements. On appeal to the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and then ultimately to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, the Board's findings were affirmed. While the appeal was pending, Ware filed a second Petition which the Board ultimately denied on September 13, 2017 on the basis of res judicata .
One month later, Plaintiffs filed suit in this Court against the Board and Baltimore County, Maryland (collectively, "Defendants") stemming from the denial of the second petition. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq. (Counts I and II); the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Count IV); the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Count V); Article 36 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights (Count VII); and seek judicial review of the Board's September 13, 2017 Opinion and Order (Count IX).1 Currently pending before this Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment.2 (ECF No. 10.) The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment, construed as a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10), is GRANTED and Plaintiffs' claims are DISMISSED.
When reviewing a motion to dismiss, this Court accepts as true the facts alleged in the plaintiff's complaint. See Aziz v. Alcolac, Inc. , 658 F.3d 388, 390 (4th Cir. 2011). In 1992, Reverend Ware ("Ware"), a native of Kenya, established Jesus Christ is the Answer Ministries, Inc. (the "Church") in Baltimore, Maryland. (Compl., ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 12–13.) The Church is a nondenominational, multicultural Christian church with associated churches in Kenya and Seychelles. (Id. at ¶¶ 15, 18–19.) According to the Complaint, ten years later in 2002, the Church consisted of ten or less members. (Id. at ¶ 22.) This small group started meeting at Ware's home in Baltimore County, Maryland. (Id. at ¶ 21.) Over the next ten years, the Church grew beyond a mere ten members and met at different locations including an elementary school and hotel. (Id. at ¶¶ 23–33.) In 2008, Ware and other Church officials began fundraising and looking for a property for a house of worship. (Id. at ¶¶ 34–36.) In August of 2012, Ware identified 4512 Old Court Road, Baltimore, Maryland (the "Property") as a potential location, and was told by a realtor that a church was a permitted use on the Property. (Id. at ¶¶ 37–38.) On August 31, 2012, Ware purchased the Property. (Id. at ¶ 39.)
The Property is approximately 1.2 acres in size, and contains a 2,900 square foot structure previously used as a home. (Id. at ¶ 42.) Without checking any applicable zoning regulations, Ware converted three rooms of the dwelling into a worship area, added two bathrooms, replaced the roof, and replaced a small deck. (Id. at ¶¶ 54–55.) In addition, Ware created a new, gravel parking area at the rear of the house and planted Cypress trees to line the new parking area. (Id. at ¶¶ 57–58.) In October of 2012, the Church held its first service, a cookout, and a party. (Id. at ¶¶ 60–61.) Local residents subsequently complained about the events to the County. (Id. at ¶ 62.) On November 8, 2012, the County informed Ware that the Property could not be used as a church until it complied with Baltimore County Zoning Regulations ("BCZR"). (Id. at ¶ 63.)
The Property is zoned "Density Residential 3.5." (Id. at ¶ 40.) The relevant BCZR that apply to the Property were summarized by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals in Ware v. People's Counsel for Baltimore County , 223 Md.App. 669, 117 A.3d 628 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) :
Id. at 673–75, 117 A.3d 628 (emphasis in original). If a petitioner requests a hearing, the Baltimore County Code also provides that a governmental entity called the may advocate a position contrary to the religious land use. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 95.)
In response to the November 8, 2012 notice from Baltimore County, on December 21, 2012, Ware filed a Petition for a Special Hearing and zoning variances (" Ware I "). (Id. at ¶ 99.) The Ware I Petition sought:
(ECF No. 10–2 at 639; ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 100–03, 113.) Notably, item one sought approval for a site plan of a new church under BCZR § 1B01.1B1g(6). The Ware I Petition also sought variances from three parking regulations. (ECF No. 10–2 at 639; ECF No. 1 at ¶ 103.)
In January of 2013, the entered its appearance in the case. (Id. at ¶ 104.) On February 5, 2013, the County Director of the Department of Planning indicated that he did not oppose the petition, "provided a landscape and signage plan is submitted to the department for review and approval." (Id. at ¶ 105.) On February 27, 2013, a hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), with People's Counsel and nearby residents, "the Protestants,"3 present. (Id. at ¶¶ 104, 106–107.) During the proceeding, Plaintiffs claim that the Protestants made the following comments directed at Reverend Ware and the Church:
[D]ancing and hollering like they are [sic ] back at their home back in Africa somewhere.... She can come over here from Africa ... branch out from another church and put all of this in our...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Little v. Mayor
...that Burford is "particularly inappropriate when preemption issues are present"); Jesus Christ is Answer Ministries, Inc. v. Balt. Cty., 303 F. Supp. 3d 378, 388-89 (D. Md. 2018) (declining to apply Burford abstention to RLUIPA claims), rev'd on other grounds 915 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2019); H......
-
Jesus Christ is the Answer Ministries, Inc. v. Balt. Cnty.
...proposal [in Ware’s first petition] of a site plan that disregarded the zoning requirements." Jesus Christ Is the Answer Ministries, Inc. v. Baltimore County , 303 F.Supp.3d 378, 396 (D. Md. 2018). The first of these supposed failings is irrelevant to whether the zoning regulations in fact ......
-
Redemption Cmty. Church v. City of Laurel
...claim under this provision, a plaintiff must "show evidence of discriminatory intent." Jesus Christ is Answer Ministries, Inc. v. Baltimore Cty. , 303 F. Supp. 3d 378, 397 (D. Md. 2018). Laurel argues that the Church has failed to set forth sufficient allegations to show discriminatory inte......
- United States v. Police Dep't of Balt., CIVIL NO. JKB–17–0099