Liberty Temple Full Gospel Church, Inc. v. Village Of Bolingbrook
1:11-cv-02173
N.D. Ill.Apr 12, 2012Background
- Liberty Temple Full Gospel Church of Bolingbrook (Liberty Bolingbrook) is a small congregation (<100 members) that is a branch of Liberty Gospel with six locations nationwide.
- Village of Bolingbrook is a municipal public body in DuPage and Will Counties.
- Plaintiff filed a one-count RLUIPA claim seeking to challenge zoning-related actions by the Village; Defendant moved for summary judgment.
- Plaintiffs began services in July 2009 in a Holiday Inn and sought a standalone site to accommodate mid-week services and amenities.
- In August 2010 they identified 251 N. Bolingbrook Dr. but were warned by the landlord that the mayor opposed new churches; later they pursued 378 Bolingbrook Commons, believed the site was zoned for churches based on a map, and leased it after wiring a $2,500 deposit for a 27‑month lease.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Village substantially burdens Liberty Bolingbrook under RLUIPA | Liberty asserts the Village refused permits, required an SUP, and imposed parking/drawing demands without substantial justification. | Village claims no substantial burden absent a required SUP or denial of a properly permitted plan. | Material facts exist; issue of substantial burden not resolved on summary judgment. |
| Whether the parcel was zoned B-2 (not allowing churches) or B-4 (allowing churches), affecting substantial burden analysis | Plaintiff contends the published map omitted B-2 designation, making its reliance reasonable belief of B-4. | Zoning could be interpreted as B-2 or B-4; no conclusive designation shown. | Genuine issue of material fact regarding the parcel’s zoning status. |
| Whether Mayor Claar’s hostility and demands for excessive parking demonstrate a substantial burden and improper denial of permit | Mayor’s statements and refusals show hostile, improper interference beyond legitimate zoning. | Officials acted within authority and without improper motive; no substantial burden shown. | Evidence could support substantial burden; factual dispute precludes summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- World Outreach Conference Center v. City of Chicago, 591 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 2009) (exhaustion not required where futility shown; substantial burden analysis fact-dependent)
- Sts. Constantine & Helen Greek Orthodox Church v. City of New Berlin, 396 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2005) (RLUIPA substantial burden nearing zoning decision; distinction of legitimate expectations)
- Petra Presbyterian Church v. Village of Northbrook, 489 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 2007) (municipal zoning limits on church location do not ipso facto violate substantial burden; depends on reliance and expectations)
- Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2003) (summary judgment standard and burden on moving party in RLUIPA context)