MO Lawyers Weekly

Virtue And Vice

What do tattoo parlors, adult video stores and storefront churches have in common? All three have been branded "undesirable" and banned by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen from operating in the Gravois/Morganford business district in the Bevo neighborhood.
The Hole in the Roof Ministry Center found out that a blighting ordinance had lumped the church into a category that also includes massage parlors, piercing salons, and package liquor stores when it applied for a conditional use permit from the City of St. Louis.
The St. Louis City's Board of Public Service rejected the application on the grounds that there was not enough off-site parking to accommodate churchgoers.
Undeterred, the church dutifully complied with the bureaucratic mandates and appealed the decision to the Board of Adjustment. Represented by St. Louis attorney Robert Arb, the church presented what Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr. later called "uncontradicted and unimpeached evidence that it had secured the use of sufficient off-street parking to accommodate the seating capacity of its church."
However, the Board of Adjustment denied the petition on other grounds, ruling that the proposed use would not be compatible with the existing uses in the area.
But the ministry didn't lose faith and took its case to circuit court.
In his ruling quashing the adjustment board's decision, Dierker first noted that because the only issue in the original hearing was whether there was ample off-street parking, that was also the only issue before him. And because the city did not present any evidence that the off-street parking was unsatisfactory, it could not prevail.
But he went on to state that the Board of Adjustment did not have any authority to consider of compatibility with existing uses.
"As a matter of law, the Board had no jurisdiction to deny a conditional use permit to a proposed church on that basis. Land use regulations, as such, do not apply to churches. Only public safety regulations, such as off-street parking regulations, can lawfully apply to church uses.
"[I]t is pellucid that the Board acted on the basis of irrelevant evidence about a proposed redevelopment plan for the neighborhood, a plan that apparently sees storefront churches in the same light as adult book stores and liquor stores.
"Consequently, the Board's decision is illegal, unsupported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record, and a patent abuse of discretion."
Dierker quashed the adjustment board's decision and remanded the matter on April 30, 2001.
Unfortunately for the church, the space they wanted was already rented out. But because the church is interested in renting another space within the same business district, it decided to take its crusade to an even higher authority — federal court.
On Aug. 23, Arb filed a complaint in federal court against the city seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance violated the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Missouri Constitution, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, and 42 U.S.C. Sect. 1983. He also sought a preliminary injunction in the case.
The case is set for hearing on Oct. 5.


September 03, 2001		Hearsay	Cite this Page: 15 M.L.W. 1002

	Virtue And Vice What do tattoo parlors, adult video stores and storefront churches have in common? All three have been branded "undesirable" and banned by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen from operating in the Gravois/Morganford business district in the Bevo neighborhood. The Hole in the Roof Ministry Center found out that a blighting ordinance had lumped the church into a category that also includes massage parlors, piercing salons, and package liquor stores when it applied for a conditional use permit from the City of St. Louis. The St. Louis City's Board of Public Service rejected the application on the grounds that there was not enough off-site parking to accommodate churchgoers. Undeterred, the church dutifully complied with the bureaucratic mandates and appealed the decision to the Board of Adjustment. Represented by St. Louis attorney Robert Arb, the church presented what Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr. later called "uncontradicted and unimpeached evidence that it had secured the use of sufficient off-street parking to accommodate the seating capacity of its church." However, the Board of Adjustment denied the petition on other grounds, ruling that the proposed use would not be compatible with the existing uses in the area. But the ministry didn't lose faith and took its case to circuit court. In his ruling quashing the adjustment board's decision, Dierker first noted that because the only issue in the original hearing was whether there was ample off-street parking, that was also the only issue before him. And because the city did not present any evidence that the off-street parking was unsatisfactory, it could not prevail. But he went on to state that the Board of Adjustment did not have any authority to consider of compatibility with existing uses. "As a matter of law, the Board had no jurisdiction to deny a conditional use permit to a proposed church on that basis. Land use regulations, as such, do not apply to churches. Only public safety regulations, such as off-street parking regulations, can lawfully apply to church uses. "[I]t is pellucid that the Board acted on the basis of irrelevant evidence about a proposed redevelopment plan for the neighborhood, a plan that apparently sees storefront churches in the same light as adult book stores and liquor stores. "Consequently, the Board's decision is illegal, unsupported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record, and a patent abuse of discretion." Dierker quashed the adjustment board's decision and remanded the matter on April 30, 2001. Unfortunately for the church, the space they wanted was already rented out. But because the church is interested in renting another space within the same business district, it decided to take its crusade to an even higher authority — federal court. On Aug. 23, Arb filed a complaint in federal court against the city seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance violated the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Missouri Constitution, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, and 42 U.S.C. Sect. 1983. He also sought a preliminary injunction in the case. The case is set for hearing on Oct. 5. © 2001 Lawyers Weekly Inc., All Rights Reserved.