In the matter of Shenkel United Church of Christ v. North Coventry Township, 2009 WL 3806769, Shenkel United Church of Christ (“the Church”), has recently discovered that its efforts to combat homelessness have been marred by the doctrine of maturity.

To fulfill its biblical mandate to care for those in need among us, the Church, for several years, participated in a program run by Montgomery County called “One Night at a Time.” “One Night at a Time” helped homeless people find shelter for one (1) month during the winter. For a reason unrelated to the case discussed here, in 2005 Montgomery County discontinued the “One Night at a Time” program. Instead, Montgomery County directed its homeless population to a local state hospital. Unfortunately, it became clear that the local state hospital was inadequate to meet the needs of the County’s homelessness efforts, as overcrowding became a persistent problem. In 2007, in response to ongoing homeless problems in Montgomery County and overcrowding at the state hospital, a Christian organization, called Ministries for Main Street, was formed to help combat homelessness. The services offered by Ministries for Main Street were essentially the same as those offered by the “One Night at a Time” program. Since the Church was actively involved in the “One Night at a Time” program, it tried to be similarly involved in Ministries for Main Street.

Prior to participating in Ministries for Main Street, the Church duly notified the Borough of North Coventry (hereinafter “the Borough”) of its intention to do so in late 2007. Although the Borough did not object to the Church’s involvement in “One Night at a Time” two (2) years earlier, the City Council now suddenly opposed the Church’s involvement in Ministries for Main Street, even though the Church was supposed to provide the same services as before. The City’s objection primarily revolved around its allegation that the Church’s efforts with Main Street Ministries would violate both the City’s zoning laws and building codes. Specifically, the Church was zoned for assembly purposes, and not as a residence, as is required to house the homeless, even temporarily. In addition, the Township Fire Marshal sent a letter to the Church advising that, based on the Church’s current zoning, it could not contain any dormitories in accordance with applicable fire safety requirements. As a result of clear resistance from the City, the Church decided not to participate in the Ministries for Main Street program. Subsequently, the City told the Church that if the Church was interested in participating in the Ministries for Main Street program, it would have to apply for a zoning and/or building and/or fire code variance.

Instead of requesting a variance, in October 2008 the Church chose to apply to the Township’s Board of Zoning Hearings, requesting a determination that it did not need a variance to participate in the Ministries for Main Street program. After a series of postponements and unsuccessful negotiations with the Municipality, the Church withdrew its aforementioned request. Instead, the Church chose to pursue its goals through litigation and filed a lawsuit against the City alleging that the City had violated the Institutionalized Persons and Religious Land Use Act, the Pennsylvania Religious Freedom Protection Act, and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States. States Constitution.

In reaching its decision, the Court never addressed the substantive allegations made by the Church. Instead, the Court refocused the issue on whether the issue is ultimately a land use issue. Consequently, the Court focused on whether the Church’s claims against the Municipality were mature in the context of a land use matter. In stating the maturity standard, the Court cited Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 US 172 (1985) and Murphy v. New Milford Zoing Commission, 402 F.3d 342 (2nd Cir. 2005). To determine if an issue is ripe when a land use issue arises from constitutional claims, such as the issue discussed here, “the government entity in charge of implementing the rules [must reach] a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property in question.” See Williamson. Based on the foregoing, in applying the maturity standard, the Court investigated whether the “decision maker” of the Municipality, in this case Board of Zoning Hearings, had come to a definite position on the salient issues. It is only when the Board of Zoning Hearings has come to an adverse decision against a landowner, in this case the Church, that the property owner an actual and recoverable damage that can serve as a basis for a civil action The Court developed the above standard because it did not want the Court to become a glorified land use board that effectively dealt with local problems. He wanted to make sure that the local zoning boards were the primary places where zoning issues, like the one we occupies. better position to make local decisions than the Court. Therefore, an issue is only ripe if the local authority issues a final decision and/or it can be proven that seeking a variance would be a wasted effort.

The Church argued that the maturity standard stated above should not apply; she argued instead that the present case is not about land use and therefore another standard of maturity should apply. To that end, the Church argued that the standard set forth in Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, 912 F.2d 643 (3rd Cir. 1990) was the appropriate standard by which the Court should render its decision. The key distinction between the standard set forth above and the standard set forth in Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc., is that the matter at issue in Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. took place in the context of a declaratory judgment rather than at context of a land use issue. Under Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc., the analysis would be to determine whether: (1) the interests of the parties are sufficiently adverse; (2) the court may make a conclusive judgment in light of potentially changing factual developments; and (3) the decision will provide practical assistance to the parties. The Church asserted that the present matter was, in fact, a declaratory judgment matter, as it sought injunction and/or declaratory relief of a pre-execution matter.

In rendering its decision, the Court simply did not find the Church’s arguments, or the cases it cited in support of them, convincing in the face of the City Council’s assertion that the matter is, in essence, a land use matter. . Specifically, the Court stated that since the Church’s action against the City directly focused on how the City’s Zoning Officer and Fire Marshal applied zoning regulations to the Church’s proposed land use; On this basis, the Court indicated, it was clear that the matter was, in essence, a land use matter rather than some sort of declaratory judgment. To summarize its rationale, the Court explained that “[s]Since the Church has not raised a head-on objection to the City’s ordinances, the Church is essentially asking this Court to rule on the application of those ordinances before the City itself has had an opportunity to do so.” enforcement of land use ordinances is therefore by definition a land use issue and the Williamson standard applies It is worth noting that the Court mentioned, as an opinion, that it is he may not have come to a different decision even if he used the cases cited by the Church in support of his position.How that would play out, of course, may never be known.

Allowing matter to proceed to maturity has a fourfold positive effect on a matter such as the one discussed here. First, it allows the local authority to make a decision and develop a complete registry. Second, it is only after the variance process is pursued that the property owner, and the court by extension, will know how the ordinances will apply. Third, the necessary variance can be granted, which would, of course, eliminate the need for judicial entanglements in the affairs of a church. Fourth, it reinforces a basic federal principle that land use disputes are solely a matter of local concern and not of court.

The Court ultimately decided that the Church issue was simply not ripe enough to be heard at this time. The Court noted that since the Church failed to achieve a variance, it withdrew its application to the Zoning Board stating that it did not need an application, and never sought any appeal of the Zoning Board or Chief Executive’s decisions. firefighters, that the Church never allowed the matter to reach any decision at any level before filing a civil action. Because of these decisions made by the Church, the Court ruled that the Church never allowed its matter to mature enough to warrant the Court’s involvement in such a matter.

Ultimately, the central issue in this case is whether the issue at hand is a land use issue or a declaratory judgment issue. For the reasons stated above, the Court decided that it was a land use issue and that the Church did not allow the matter to mature enough to warrant civil action. The principle to be removed from the decision discussed here is that, when dealing with a land use issue, all local administrative remedies must be exhausted before civil action can be brought.

Finally, one of the questions that was never addressed in the decision discussed here, and which this author considers quite peculiar, is why the Church was allowed to house the homeless when it participated in the program “One night at a time But he wasn’t allowed to. the same in the Ministries for Main Street program, even though the Church facilities were substantially the same at all material times. This clearly apparent, inexplicable and apparently arbitrary change in the Municipality’s policy towards the Church seems to this author to involve more than a simple land use problem; in fact, it would seem that the religious freedom of a Church to achieve its social objectives in the community is at stake. Perhaps if a deeper investigation were done to determine why the Church was suddenly prevented from holding a service that it had held for many years without interference from the City Council, a new perspective on whether the matter was really ripe might have stopped the efforts. of the Church to combat homelessness. .