Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION THOMAS A. WISEMAN, Jr., Senior District Judge. Plaintiff Layman Lessons, Inc. filed its complaint in this matter seeking injunctive and declaratory relief as well as compensatory damages arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from the Defendant City of Millers-ville’s alleged violation of the United States Constitution; Plaintiff also claims violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. (“RLUIPA”), and the Tennessee Constitution. Both parties have now filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In its motion, Plaintiff asserts that it is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the Defendant’s various actions constituted an illegal and unconstitutional deprivation of Plaintiffs constitutional and statutory rights, a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant from further violation of said rights, and nominal damages, which would potentially also entitle it, as a “prevailing party” in either a § 1983 or an RLUIPA action, to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). In response to Plaintiffs motion and in support of its own, the Defendant argues first that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims. Alternatively, the Defendant argues that even if this Court determines that the exercise of jurisdiction is proper, the only issue remaining in this case is whether Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees, based on Magistrate Judge Griffin’s Orders entered December 26, 2006 and September 6, 2007, the first stating that the only remaining issues were damages and attorney’s fees (Doc. No. 30), and the second noting that Plaintiff had withdrawn its claim for monetary relief (Doc. No. 53, at ¶ 4) and therefore striking, with the parties’ agreement, the paragraph on page 12 of Plaintiffs amended complaint requesting compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000. The Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees because it cannot be considered the “prevailing party” in this action. Finally, the Defendant argues that even if Plaintiff is considered the “prevailing party,” it achieved no more than a “moral victory” which does not entitle it to recover attorney’s fees. The Court, having considered the applicable law and the undisputed facts, the parties’ arguments and the entire record in this matter, finds that each motion must be granted in part and denied in part, as set forth below, resulting in the resolution of all pending claims. Plaintiff will, however, be deemed the “prevailing party” and will be entitled to attorney’s fees commensurate with its degree of success. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party has the burden of showing an “absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to an essential element of the nonmovant’s case.” Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th Cir.1989). The moving party may do this by providing affidavits or other proof or by showing lack of evidence on an issue for which the non-moving party will have the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The non-moving party must then present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). In essence, the inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The standard of review for cross-motions for summary judgment does not differ from the standard applied when only one party files a motion, but simply requires a determination of whether either party deserves judgment as a matter of law on the material undisputed facts. Taft Broad. Co. v. United States, 929 F.2d 240, 248 (6th Cir.1991). The reviewing court must consider each motion on its own merits, resolving all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Tech Dry. Inc., 336 F.3d 503, 506 (6th Cir.2003); Taft Broad. Co., 929 F.2d at 248. Accordingly, when a court denies summary judgment to one party on the ground that it is granting summary judgment to another party, the denial of summary judgment is based on a legal conclusion rather than the district court’s finding of a genuine issue of material fact. Black v. Roadway Express, Inc., 297 F.3d 445, 448 (6th Cir.2002). II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated. Plaintiff Layman Lessons, Inc. is a nonprofit, faith-based religious institution classified for tax purposes as a church. Layman Lessons seeks to provide food, clothing, shelter, transportation and Christian training to those in need. In 2005, Layman Lessons started Blessingdales Charity Store (“Blessingdales”) as a branch of its ministry. Blessingdales was formed to serve as a storage and distribution center for donated clothing and personal items pending distribution to the needy as well as a retail store selling donated items to raise money to support Layman Lessons’ programs. (Doc. No. 57 (Aff. of L. Johnston).) On April 11, 2006, Layman Lessons entered into an Exclusive Lease Agreement (“Lease”) with local businessman Chad Ray, pursuant to which Ray agreed to lease to Layman Lessons the upstairs portion of a building located at 1267 Louisville Highway in Millersville, Tennessee (the “Property”). (Doc. No. 66-1.) Layman Lessons’ intent was to use the space as a retail thrift store and as headquarters for Blessingdales. Within a few days of executing the Lease, Louie Johnston, on behalf of Layman Lessons, met with Millers-ville Codes Administrator Karen Smith to begin the process of obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy (to which the parties also refer as a “Use and Occupancy Permit”). (Doc. No. 57, at ¶ 10.) The Millersville Zoning Code requires that a new occupant obtain a Certificate of Occupancy prior to any alteration in the use of a building, and provides that a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued by a building inspector once “the building ... or part thereof is found to conform with provisions of this chapter [the Zoning Ordinance of Millersville, Tennessee].” (Doc. No. 66-3, at 9 (Millersville Mun.Code § 90-55).) According to Smith, when presented with a proposed change in use, she will generally arrange for a building inspection and permit review. (Doc. No. 80, at 2.) The parties agree that if a new business moving into an existing property constitutes a change in use and certain zoning issues are present, the application for a Certificate of Occupancy must be presented to and approved by the Planning Commission. In this case, it is undisputed that the Property is located within Millersville, Tennessee in an area that has at all times relevant to this dispute been zoned commercial and classified as C-l. Uses permitted as of right in this zoning district include retail stores and churches; as well as other types of businesses, pursuant to the Millersville Zoning Ordinance that went into effect on July 15, 2003. Millersville Mun.Code § 90-182(b)(l) (Doc. No. 66-3, at 10); Millersville Mun.Code § 03-429 (Doc. No. 71-1) (adopting the “Code of Ordinances”).. Defendant, the City of Millersville (hereinafter, the “City”), nonetheless argues that a proposed zoning change pending at the time of Layman Lessons’ application for a Certificate of Occupancy, as discussed below, meant that the application would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. A building inspection took place on April 17, 2006, and a business review was held on June 22, 2006. (See 6/26/06 Letter from K. Smith to L. Johnston (Doc. No. 68).) In the meantime, Smith had initially been confused about the type of business activity Layman Lessons planned to conduct at the Property — specifically, she thought Layman Lessons intended to house and feed the homeless there and was not sure whether such a use would require review by the Planning Commission. (See Doc. No. 80-1, at 2 (Smith Dep. at 32:16-22).) Either for that reason or because of time constraints, she asked City Planner James Lech to assist her with Layman Lessons’ application process, and to determine if Layman Lessons’ intended use of the Property raised zoning issues that required Planning Commission approval. It is not clear when Smith first spoke with Lech, but Lech and Smith together met with Johnston in mid-April and asked Johnston to submit a written description of Layman Lessons’ proposed use of the Property. Johnston submitted the requested information in the form of a document titled “Use and Occupancy Activities Statement” dated May 5, 2007, in which he specifically stated that “no persons, homeless or otherwise will stay in or on the property overnight.” (Doc. No. 80-2.) Instead, the Property would be used as a collection and distribution center for donated items, as a retail store where donated items would be sold to the public to raise funds for Layman Lessons’ programs and as storage space of out-of-season donated items. (Id.) James Lech’s role as City requires that he recommend to the Planning Commission, during Planning Commission meetings, whether to grant or decline applications for Certificates of Occupancy that go before the Planning Commission. (Doc. No. 78-1, at 2 (Lech Dep. at 19:18-22).) Lech is not a voting member of the Planning Commission, however, and while it is undisputed that the Planning Commission relies heavily on Lech’s recommendations (see, e.g., Doc. No. 76-1, at 2 (Mobley Dep. at 23:15-18); Doc. No. 77-1, at 11 (Smith Dep. at 41:9-12)), the Planning Commission has the discretion to reject or adopt Lech’s recommendations. (Doc. No. 80, at ¶¶ 11-13.) The City contends that Lech himself does not have the ability to grant or deny permit applications. Layman Lessons attempts to dispute that contention, arguing that the Defendant’s citations to the record do not support it and that the record is unclear as to who has the authority to grant or deny permit applications when there is no need to submit the application to the Planning Committee. (Doc. No. 80, ¶ 14, at 4-5.) From the Court’s own perusal of the Zoning Ordinance in the record, it appears that where no zoning issues are involved such that an application does not need to be submitted to the Planning Commission, the building inspector has authority to issue permits once certain requirements are met. (Doc. No. 66-3, at 9 (Millersville Mun.Code § 90-55).) It is not clear who else might also have such authority nor who has the authority to deny such applications, other than the Planning Commission. In any event, at some point in early May 2006, Layman Lessons’ landlord, Chad Ray, sought Lech’s opinion regarding Layman Lessons’ proposed use of the Property. Ray had at one point served on Millersville’s Planning Commission and owned a considerable amount of property in Millersville. (Doc. No. 74-1, at 2) (Ray Dep. at 16:10-14.) He was therefore knowledgeable about the process for obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. In response to Ray’s inquiry, Lech wrote a letter to him dated May 16, 2006 in which he stated in pertinent part: This letter is to confirm our discussion last week regarding my findings on the application for Layman’s [sic] Lessons. Again, the pending status of the NP-1 zoning classification (Non-profit, philanthropic, religious, and government uses) compels me to reject the possibility of such an organization until that zoning classification is passed, or rejected by the city commission — whose hands that ordinance is in right now.... Even if this ordinance is passed, which takes many readings over many months, your tenants must apply for the classification, which is an equally lengthy process. (Doc. No. 66-4.) The City asserts that the letter was addressed to and intended for Ray, who was knowledgeable about the permitting process and knew that Lech had no control over whether applications for Certificates of Occupancy are granted or denied. (See Doc. No. 74-1, at 3 (Ray Dep. at 58:7-17).) Layman Lessons denies that Lech had no such control, pointing out that the Planning Commission usually accepts Lech’s recommendations. At any rate, the “pending ordinance” to which Lech referred in his letter had been in the works since sometime prior to September 13, 2005. (See Doc. No. 66-5, at 3-4, 6-7.) On May 9, 2006, nearly a month after Layman Lessons had initiated the process of obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to pass the proposed NP-1 ordinance (hereafter “Proposed Ordinance” or “Proposed NP-1 Ordinance”) to the City Commission with a recommendation that it be adopted. (Doc. No. 66-6, at 5.) Louie Johnston, meanwhile, having not heard anything for approximately a month since he had first applied for a Certificate of Occupancy, contacted James Lech to inquire regarding the status of his application. He apparently had already heard about the letter Lech sent to Ray. On May 17, 2006, Johnston went in person to Lech’s office. Johnston alleges that Lech told him his application for a Certificate of Occupancy would be denied based on an ordinance pending before the City Commission that would affect new religious establishments within the city limits of Millersville. The City denies that Lech informed Johnston that Layman Lessons definitively was or would be denied a Certificate of Occupancy, though Lech concedes that he planned to recommend denial to the Planning Commission based upon the Proposed Ordinance. (Doc. No. 78-1, at 8 (Lech Dep. at 84:1-8).) After speaking with Lech, Johnston appealed to City Manager Robert Mobley to intervene in the situation, as he had told Lech he would do. According to Johnston, Mobley told him that he supported Lech’s position and confirmed that the Planning Commission accepted Lech’s recommendations as final in most cases. (Doc. No. 57, at ¶ 17.) Mobley denies making any affirmative statement to that effect and does not recall whether he tried to explain the purpose of the Proposed NP-1 Ordinance to Johnston. He conceded, however, that he probably told Johnston that he had “some agreement with the intent of the ordinance and that is to reserve very specific locations for the benefit of the citizens for high retail.” (Doc. No. 76-1, at 7-8 (Mobley Dep. at 28:19-29:6).) On June 7, 2006, Layman Lessons filed its original complaint in this Court, alleging that it had been denied the right to occupy the Property on the basis of the Proposed Ordinance which, if enacted, would “effectively ban the establishment of any and all new religious or other nonprofit property uses within the city limits of Millersville.” (Doc. No. 1, ¶ 1.) The complaint also alleged that applying for a Certificate of Occupancy under the Proposed Ordinance “would be an act of futility” based on Lech’s representations that Layman Lessons’ intended use of the property would “most certainly be prohibited under this new zoning ordinance.” (Doc. No. 1, at ¶ 14.) The Proposed Ordinance to which Layman Lessons objected was never actually adopted or even presented to the City Commission, even though the Planning Commission had voted to present it to the City Commission and, according to the City Commission’s meeting agenda for June 20, 2006, intended to present it for a first reading at that meeting. When the item came up for discussion, however, City Manager Robert Mobley instead recommended that the proposal be “sent back to the work session for further review and clarification before the first reading due to misinterpretation and some allegations made in a lawsuit against the city,” apparently referring to Layman Lessons’ lawsuit. (Doc. No. 80-3, at 2 (emphasis added).) On June 23, 2006, the parties submitted a Joint Motion for entry of an Agreed Order for Preliminary Injunction, which was granted and the proposed Agreed Order entered on June 26, 2006. In pertinent part, the Agreed Order states: 1. The City of Millersville shall be and hereby is temporarily enjoined and restrained from enforcing against the Plaintiff the proposed NP-1 zoning classification as referenced in Exhibit 1 to the Affidavit of Louie Johnston.... 2. The Plaintiff, having completed a review process with the City Codes Administration for a use and occupancy permit for the concerned property, agrees to file on or before July 6, 2006, any additional site plan or documentation required by the City Planning Commission for its consideration of the Plaintiffs proposed use of this property. The Defendant shall place the Plaintiffs application on its agenda for its upcoming Planning Commission meeting on August 8, 2006, and shall makes its recommendation with regard to this at this meeting. During the interim, the Defendant shall not interfere with the Plaintiffs ability to operate its ministry at this location as long as Plaintiff complies with existing codes regulations. (Doc. No. 15, at ¶¶ 1 and 2.) Also on June 26, 2006, Karen Smith, City Codes Administrator, sent a letter to Johnston confirming again that, “[u]nder current zoning, Commercial-1, retail stores and churches are both permitted uses.” The letter further indicated, however, that the City was requiring that a “buffer strip” be installed and maintained between the Property and “any adjacent residential use” before a Certificate of Occupancy would be issued. (Doc. No. 68.) Ms. Smith’s letter noted that the “buffer strip” requirement “could be accomplished with a privacy fence, landscaping or a combination of the two.” (Id.) The letter therefore requested that Johnston provide the Codes Administration Office with “a simple site drawing that depicts what [he] will be doing to satisfy this requirement,” and further requested that he “contact this department once the buffer strip is in place” so that an inspection of the changes could be performed. (Id.) The Millersville zoning ordinance referring to “buffer strips” states that Where a use is established in areas zoned commercial or industrial which abuts at any point upon property zoned residential, the developer of such use shall provide a landscaped buffer strip of no less than 25 feet in width at the point of abutment. Millersville Mun.Code § 90-19(a) (Doc. No. 66-3, at 5). It is undisputed that the Property does not abut any property zoned residential and in fact that the adjacent properties are all zoned commercial as C-l. The City denies, however, that § 90-19 “only require[s]” buffer strips for properties zoned commercial or industrial that abut property zoned residential, and asserts (without any real support from the factual record) that the City’s practice was “to interpret this provision broadly and require buffer strips between property used commercially and property used residentially when to do so would promote the zoning ordinance’s stated purpose of providing adequate privacy.” (Doc. No. 69, at 5.) In its response to an interrogatory from Layman Lessons, the City provided four examples of other places where it required an applicant for a Certificate of Occupancy to erect a buffer strip even though the abutting property was not zoned residential. (See Doc. No. 68-1.) The City has not explained why it chose to impose the requirement in those situations or in Layman Lessons’ case, nor has it cited to any regulation authorizing it to require such buffer strips other than when a property zoned commercial or industrial abuts residential property. There was much corresponding back and forth between the parties regarding the so-called “buffer-strip requirement” in the summer of 2006, only part of which is in the record submitted to the Court. Ultimately, however, Layman Lessons agreed to build a privacy fence as required by the Planning Commission in an attempt to facilitate issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Layman Lessons received its Certificate of Occupancy on November 20, 2006. (Doc. No. 68-8.) In the meanwhile, however, on August 18, Layman Lessons had filed a motion to amend its complaint (and a proposed amended complaint) to include an allegation that the buffer-strip requirement was being enforced against Layman Lessons “arbitrarily and capriciously” and that Layman Lessons’ ability to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy was hinged on compliance with an inapplicable ordinance. The motion to amend was granted. On December 19, 2006, after Layman Lessons obtained its Certificate, the City of Millersville passed a much-revised NP-1 ordinance, Millersville Municipal Code § 06-487, that created a new zoning classification for non-profit, philanthropic, religious and government uses. (Doc. No. 68-9, at 1.) Layman Lessons does not contend that the ordinance as passed has an adverse affect on its proposed used of the Property. Also in December 2006, Ray instituted eviction proceedings against Layman Lessons which, as of the time the parties’ cross-motions were filed, were still pending. III. DEFENDANT’S MOTION Layman Lessons’ Amended Complaint (filed in September 2006) asserts eight causes of action, the first four of which are based upon allegations that the City violated the RLUIPA by “imposing and implementing land use regulations,” namely the Proposed NP-1 Ordinance, that (1) “place a substantial burden on Plaintiffs religious exercise without a compelling governmental interest”; (2) “discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of religion or religious affiliation”; (3) “treat[] a religious use and institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious use and institution”; and (4) “totally exclude! ] Plaintiff from its jurisdiction.” (Am. Compl. (Doc. No. 23), Counts I — IV.) Count V asserts a claim based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based upon a contention that the City’s actions violated Layman Lessons’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by discriminating against it and by imposing a substantial burden on its practice of religion without a compelling government interest; Count VI asserts a § 1983 claim based on the City’s alleged violation of Layman Lessons’ right to equal protection of the laws by discriminating against the Layman Lessons in the application of the laws, practices and policies of the City of Millersville; Count VII asserts a claim based upon the alleged violation of the Tennessee constitution’s guarantee of freedom to worship; and Count VIII, the only count not included in the plaintiffs original complaint, filed in June 2006, asserts a due-process claim based upon the allegedly arbitrary enforcement of Millersville MumCode § 90-19 (the “buffer-strip ordinance”). The actions upon which Layman Lessons’ various claims appear to be premised include (1) the alleged initial denial or delay in issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy based upon the supposedly pending Proposed NP-1 Ordinance, (2) the terms of the Proposed Ordinance itself, and (3) as set forth in Count VIII, the allegedly arbitrary enforcement of the “buffer-strip requirement.” Based upon those purported wrongs and the related causes of action, Layman Lessons seeks the following specific relief in its amended complaint: (1) a declaration that the “ad hoc” enforcement of a pending zoning ordinance, the premature enforcement of that zoning ordinance, and/or the Defendant’s delay tactics in issuing a Certificate of Occupancy are illegal and unconstitutional and violate the RLUIPA; (2) a declaration that denial of Plaintiffs application for a Certificate of Occupancy is unconstitutional and illegal; (3) an injunction preventing the Defendant from illegal and unconstitutional application of the city’s zoning ordinances to the Plaintiffs property; and (4) a declaration that Millersville Mun. Code § 90-19 is unconstitutional. (Am. Compl. (Doc. No. 23) at 12 (“Request for Relief’).) In addition, the Request for Relief originally contained a paragraph demanding compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000. Layman Lessons subsequently withdrew its claim for monetary relief; and Magistrate Judge Griffin entered an Order on September 6, 2007 striking, “with the parties’ agreement,” that paragraph from the amended complaint. (Doc. No. 53.) In its present motion, the City first raises the issues of ripeness, mootness, and standing, arguing that no justiciable issues remain to be tried, that some of Layman Lessons’ claims were never ripe to begin with, and Layman Lessons therefore lacks standing to bring any of its claims. In addition, the City argues that, even if any of Layman Lessons’ claims remain justiciable, (1) Layman Lessons cannot establish municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it cannot prove any policy or custom of the City, or act of a final policymaker for the City, caused a violation of the Constitution; (2) Layman Lessons cannot establish the City violated or caused a violation of the Constitution or the RLUIPA; and (3) even if Layman Lessons could establish municipal liability and a violation of its rights, Layman Lessons has obtained no more than a “moral victory” in this case such that it should not be deemed a “prevailing party” entitled to recover attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The issues of ripeness, mootness and standing all place the Court’s jurisdiction in question and must be considered first, before the Court reaches the merits of Layman Lessons’ motion or the City’s other arguments. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (in order for a federal court to exercise jurisdiction over a matter, the party seeking relief must have standing to sue); Cleveland Nat’l Air Show, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 430 F.3d 757, 761 (6th Cir.2005) (noting that a dispute that has become moot no longer satisfies the live case-or-controversy requirement); Bigelow v. Mich. Dep’t of Natural Res., 970 F.2d 154, 157 (6th Cir.1992) (“Ripeness is more than a mere procedural question; it is determinative of jurisdiction. If a claim is unripe, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction and the complaint must be dismissed.” (citation omitted)). In the context of considering a defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court must, of course, consider any disputed facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Tech Dry. Inc., 336 F.3d 503, 506 (6th Cir.2003). In addition, since the elements of standing are not “mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiffs case,” for which the “plaintiff bears the burden of proof, each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, ie., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Thus, while general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice at the pleading stage, a plaintiff responding to a motion for summary judgment must “set forth” by affidavit or other evidence “specific facts,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e), which for purposes of the summary judgment motion will be taken to be true. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (some citations omitted). A. Standing Issues (1) Whether Plaintiff’s Claims Are Ripe Federal courts may not hear cases that are not ripe for review. Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., 509 U.S. 43, 57-58 and n. 18, 113 S.Ct. 2485, 125 L.Ed.2d 38 (1993). In arguing that Layman Lessons’ claims are not ripe, the City posits that suit was brought too soon, before Layman Lessons had ever suffered a justiciable wrong. The Sixth Circuit has recognized that the issues of standing and ripeness are distinct but involve “overlapping inquiries.” Kardules v. City of Columbus, 95 F.3d 1335, 1343 (6th Cir.1996). Specifically- [i]f no injury has occurred, the plaintiff could be denied standing or the case could be dismissed as not ripe. The question whether an alleged injury is sufficient to meet the constitutional “case or controversy” requirement is at the heart of both doctrines. The ripeness doctrine generally applies in cases ... in which a party seeks a declaratory judgment based on pre-enforcement review of a statute or regulation.... In declaratory judgment actions it is often difficult to draw a line between actual controversies and attempts to obtain advisory opinions on the basis of hypothetical controversies. Id. at 1343-44. The Supreme Court has recognized that it is not possible to develop a “precise test” for determining the existence of a justiciable “controversy,” but in each case a court must determine under the particular circumstances whether the facts alleged “show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108, 89 S.Ct. 956, 22 L.Ed.2d 113 (1969). The Supreme Court also has stated that its determination whether a case is ripe focuses on two considerations: “the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration” and “the fitness of the issues for judicial decision.” Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967); see also Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190, 201, 103 S.Ct. 1713, 75 L.Ed.2d 752 (1983). The Supreme Court typically has found hardship when enforcement of a statute or regulation is inevitable and the sole impediment to ripeness is simply a delay before the proceedings commence. For example, in Blanchette v. Connecticut General Insurance Corporations, 419 U.S. 102, 95 S.Ct. 335, 42 L.Ed.2d 320 (1974), the Court deemed ripe an action brought by eight major railroads challenging the conveyance of their property to Conrail. Although a reorganization plan had not yet been formulated and a special court had not yet ordered the conveyances, the Court reasoned that “[wjhere the inevitability of the operation of a statute against certain individuals is patent, it is irrelevant to the existence of a justiciable controversy that there will be a time delay before the disputed provisions will come into effect.” Id. at 143, 95 S.Ct. 335. Similarly, in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 117-18, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976), the plaintiffs were allowed to challenge the method of appointing members of the Federal Election Commission in anticipation of “impending future rulings and determinations by the Commission.” On the other hand, the Court has generally held that a controversy concerning a regulation is not ripe until the regulation has actually been applied to a claimant’s situation by some concrete action. Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990). Here, on the basis of a Second Circuit case interpreting Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985), the City argues that a dispute concerning a zoning decision does not become ripe until the challenging party obtains a final, definitive position from the relevant zoning authority. See Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Comm’n, 402 F.3d 342 (2d Cir.2005). The Sixth Circuit, however, has not construed Williamson County as broadly as the Second Circuit has. Rather, the Sixth Circuit has expressly held that the holding in Williamson County applies only where the plaintiff alleges an unconstitutional “taking” of his property under the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Nasierowski Bros. Inv. Co. v. City of Sterling Heights, 949 F.2d 890, 893-94 (6th Cir.1991). Layman Lessons does not allege a taking, so the finality requirement articulated in Williamson County and expanded by Murphy and similar opinions from other circuits is not applicable here. This Court must therefore consider ripeness under the more general standards articulated above, namely, whether Layman Lessons can “show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Golden, 394 U.S. at 108, 89 S.Ct. 956. As previously indicated, Layman Lessons’ claims here are predicated on three separate factors: First, Layman Lessons challenges the constitutionality and legality under the RLUIPA of what it characterizes as the denial of a Certificate of Occupancy based upon the supposed pendency of the Proposed NP-1 Ordinance; second, it challenges the constitutionality and legality of the Proposed Ordinance itself; third, it contends that the arbitrary enforcement of the “buffer-strip” regulation violated its constitutional due process rights. (a) Ripeness of Claims Related to Denial of Certificate of Occupancy With respect to the ripeness of Layman Lessons’ claims regarding the initial denial of or delay in granting a Certificate of Occupancy, Layman Lessons alleged in its original complaint that Lech told Johnston that his organization’s application would be denied based on the pendency of the Proposed NP-1 Ordinance. On that basis, Layman Lessons argues that it was given reason to believe that the decision had already been made to deny him a Permit or to delay indefinitely a decision while the Proposed Ordinance remained pending, and that presenting his application to the Planning Commission would be futile. The City argues that when Layman Lessons filed suit on June 7, 2006, it had not yet submitted a site plan, undergone a business review, or even officially been denied a Certificate of Occupancy; it therefore “had not felt the effects of a formalized administrative decision in any concrete way.” (Doc. No. 69, at 14.) The City also denies that James Lech had authority to deny or delay issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, regardless of Louie Johnston’s belief to the contrary. Construing all facts in the light most favorable to Layman Lessons as the nonmovant with respect to the City’s motion, the Court finds that Layman Lessons has at a minimum alleged sufficient facts to establish the existence of a ripe controversy by alleging that its application for a Certificate of Occupancy had already been or would inevitably be denied, and in any event was being improperly delayed. This determination is based, not on Lech’s letter to Chad Ray, but upon Johnston’s version of his conversation with Lech, as set forth in Johnston’s affidavit, according to which Lech told him in no uncertain terms that his application for a Certificate of Occupancy would be denied based on the Proposed NP-1 Ordinance. Moreover, Lech has conceded that he intended to recommend to the Planning Commission that the Application be denied based on the proposed NC-1 Ordinance. The minutes from the City Commission meeting at which the proposed NC-1 Ordinance was to have had its first reading indicates that the filing of Layman Lessons’ lawsuit effectively derailed the process of implementing the proposed ordinance. It is therefore reasonably certain that, but for the filing of the lawsuit, James Lech’s recommendation that the application be denied would have prevailed. Further, although the City argues that James Lech did not have authority unilaterally to deny issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, he apparently did have the power to delay consideration of an application or issuance of a Certificate and had already exercised such power by the time Layman Lessons’ complaint was filed. Accordingly, the Court finds that the City’s motion for summary judgment of Layman Lessons’ claims regarding the initial denial of or delay in granting a Certificate of Occupancy on the grounds of ripeness must be denied. (b) Ripeness of Claim Related to Legality of Proposed NP-1 Ordinance The next issue is whether Layman Lessons’ claims that the Proposed NP-1 Ordinance violated the constitution and the RLUIPA were ripe when the Complaint was filed. It is clear that as of June 7, 2006, when this case was initiated, the Planning Commission had voted to refer the NP-1 proposal to the entire City Commission but the anticipated recommendation was explicitly conditioned on an expectation that the City Attorney would consider the proposal in light of the RLUIPA and that further changes might occur before the City Commission considered it. Moreover, the actual proposal had not yet been presented to the City Commission by the time Layman Lessons filed suit. Layman Lessons nonetheless argues that “the City’s decision to develop an ordinance aimed at zoning out all religious organizations from the commercial C-l district was made final when it instructed its City Planner, James. Lech, to prepare a draft of the ordinance. In fact, until the commencement of this lawsuit, the ordinance was well on its way to becoming part of the City’s zoning ordinance.” (Doc. No. 81, at 11.) Judging from the City Commission’s minutes from its June 20, 2006 meeting, it does in fact appear that the filing of Layman Lessons’ lawsuit had an impact on the progression of the Proposed Ordinance, as suggested above. Specifically, the first reading of the Proposed Ordinance was on the agenda for the June 20, 2006 City Commission meeting, but the first reading never actually took place. Instead, the City Manager advised the Commission members that the city attorney “recommended that [the proposal] be sent back to the work session for further review and clarification before first reading due to a misinterpretation and some allegations made in a lawsuit against the city regarding the use of land.” (Doc. No. 80-3, at 2.) Consequently, a motion was made to table the proposal and send it back to work session. That motion passed unanimously. The ordinance in the form to which Layman Lessons objected was ultimately never presented to the City Commission and was never enacted. In other words, the final proposal had not yet been prepared or presented to the entire City Commission at the time Layman Lessons filed this action on June 6, and the City Commission had not even begun the relatively lengthy process of enacting the proposal. The Proposed Ordinance underwent substantial revisions before it was actually passed in December 2006, and Layman Lessons does not object to the version that was enacted. The Court can only speculate that if Layman Lessons had not filed suit, the Proposed Ordinance would likely have been presented to the City Commission on June 20 in the same form as when the Planning Commission agreed to pass it to the City Commission and that, without objection from Layman Lessons, the City Commission might have begun enacting the Proposed Ordinance on June 20 with approval at a first reading, and later would have approved it after subsequent readings at subsequent meetings. Such speculation does not provide a legitimate basis for court action. The inescapable fact is that the Proposed Ordinance was still a moving target as of June 7, 2006, and any action the Court might have taken with regard to the proposal as of that date would necessarily have taken the form of precisely the type of advisory opinion the ripeness doctrine and the “case or controversy” requirement were designed to avoid. The Court therefore concludes that, at the time Layman Lessons’ complaint was filed, any claims regarding the legality of the Proposed NP-1 Ordinance per se were not ripe and did not present a justiciable issue. (c) Ripeness of Claim Related to “Buffer-Strip” Ordinance With respect to Layman Lessons’ claim relating to the buffer-strip requirement, the City has not argued that it was not ripe, and it appears (given the inapplicability of Williamson County’s finality requirement in this Circuit where no “taking” is alleged) that it likely was ripe at the time the amended complaint was filed, as Layman Lessons has, at a minimum, raised a colorable claim that enforcement of that regulation against it was inevitable. (2) Whether Plaintiff’s Claims Are Moot. A federal court has no authority to render a decision upon moot questions or to declare rules of law that cannot affect the matter at issue. Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12, 113 S.Ct. 447, 121 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992) (citation omitted). A case becomes moot, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction, when: (1) it can be said with assurance that there is no reasonable expectation ... that the alleged violation will recur, and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation. County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). When both these requirements are met, “neither party has a legally cognizable interest in the final determination of the underlying questions of fact and law.” Id. “Mootness has been described as the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).” Gottfried v. Med. Planning Servs., Inc., 280 F.3d 684, 691 (6th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). It has also been recognized, however, that “as a general rule, voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case, ie., does not make the case moot.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, where a claim for injunctive relief has become moot, “relief in the form of damages for a past constitutional violation is not affected.” Gottfried, 280 F.3d at 691 (citing Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 393-94, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 495-500, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969)). The heavy burden of demonstrating mootness rests on the party claiming mootness. Id. (a) Mootness of Claims Related to Legality of Proposed NP-1 Ordinance Under these principles, even if Layman Lessons’ claims regarding the legality of the Proposed NP-1 Ordinance could be considered ripe at the time this action was filed, the claims for injunctive relief, if not for damages, would have become moot through the course of these proceedings insofar as the version that actually passed is not challenged by Layman Lessons as being unconstitutional or in violation of the RLUIPA. Cf. Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253, 260 (3d Cir.2007) (holding that RLUIPA claims for injunctive relief based on the facial invalidity of a zoning ordinance became moot upon the amendment of the ordinance removing those features challenged by the claims). Because the Proposed Ordinance as originally formulated and to which Layman Lessons objected never actually passed, “interim events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979). (b) Mootness of Claims Related to Alleged Denial of Certificate of Occupancy The City argues that, even if Layman Lessons’ claims relating to the alleged denial of its Certificate of Occupancy (or delay in consideration of its application) were ripe, they became moot during the course of this litigation. In support of this argument, the City points out that the Certificate of Occupancy was actually issued in November 2006, thereby “eradicating the effects” of the prior alleged constitutional violation. The City also posits that repetition is not likely since the Certificate has actually been issued, the proposed zoning ordinance that allegedly held it up initially has been passed in substantially different form, and Layman Lessons complied with all the other conditions imposed on its application to obtain the Certificate. The City’s arguments notwithstanding, the fact that Layman Lessons ultimately obtained a Certificate of Occupancy in this case does not necessarily render its claims moot, because “[a] party’s voluntary cessation of an allegedly illegal activity does not moot the issue of whether prospective injunctive or declaratory relief is proper.” Dixie Fuel Co. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 171 F.3d 1052, 1056 (6th Cir.1999) (citing City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, 289, 102 S.Ct. 1070, 71 L.Ed.2d 152 (1982)). Nor would a claim for damages be rendered moot and, in the Sixth Circuit, even a claim for nominal damages is generally sufficient to establish standing and defeat mootness. Lynch v. Leis, 382 F.3d 642, 646 n. 2 (6th Cir.2004) (citing Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001)). In sum, the Court finds that Layman Lessons’ claims based upon an alleged violation of the RLUIPA and/or the constitution through the alleged initial denial of or delay in issuing a Certificate of Occupancy were not rendered moot by the ultimate issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. (c) Mootness of Claims Relating to Buffer-Strip Requirement The City also argues that any claim based upon the buffer-strip requirement has been rendered moot by subsequent events. The Court finds, however, that Layman Lessons’ compliance with a demonstrably inapplicable and arbitrarily enforced regulation did not render moot its claims related to the imposition of such a regulation. (3) Conclusion: Standing Issues For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that all of Layman Lessons’ claims for equitable relief or damages based upon the alleged facial illegality of the Proposed NP-1 Ordinance per se were never ripe and, even if they were ripe, the claims for injunctive relief based on the facial invalidity of the Proposed Ordinance have subsequently been rendered moot. However, the Court finds that Layman Lessons’ claims relating to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy based on the supposed pendency of the NP-1 Ordinance and the application of the buffer-strip requirement were ripe at the time the complaint or amended complaint was filed and, despite the occurrence of subsequent events, have not been rendered moot. The City’s motion for summary judgment as to those claims on the grounds of standing must therefore be denied. B. Whether Plaintiff Can Establish Municipal Liability In the alternative, the City argues that, even if the Court finds it has jurisdiction, it is entitled to summary judgment because Layman Lessons cannot establish municipal liability on the part of the City of Millersville for the acts of City Planner James Lech. (1) Municipal Liability Under § 1983 The City argues that it cannot be vicariously liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Lech’s alleged denial of (or delay in issuing) a Certificate of Occupancy to Layman Lessons. Overruling prior precedent, the Supreme Court held unequivocally in 1978 that “municipalities and other local government units [are] included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. Local governing bodies, therefore, can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief....” Monell v. Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). The holding in Monell was limited, however, to cases in which “the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that bodies’ officers.” Id. Thus, “a municipality cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” Id. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court has provided additional guidance as to how to determine what makes “official policy” and who may be deemed a policymaking official. In Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati 475 U.S. 469, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986), the Court noted: “The ‘official policy’ requirement [in Monell ] was intended to distinguish between acts of the municipality from acts of employees of the municipality, and thereby make clear that municipal liability is limited to action for which the municipality is actually responsible.” Id. at 479, 106 S.Ct. 1292. Thus, an act undertaken by a municipality’s governing body, such as a City Council, would “unquestionably constitute[ ] an act of official government policy.” Id. at 480, 106 S.Ct. 1292 (citing Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980); Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981)). Likewise, the term “official policy” clearly refers to “formal rules or understandings — often but not always committed to writing — that are intended to, and do, establish fixed plans of action to be followed under similar circumstances consistently and over time.” Id. at 480-81, 106 S.Ct. 1292. In addition, however, “official policy” would also encompass decisions made by a municipality’s “authorized decisionmakers,” regardless of whether the action was “tailored to a particular situation and not intended to control decisions in later situations.” Id. at 481, 106 S.Ct. 1292. The Court further clarified its use of the term “authorized decisionmakers”: [W]e hasten to emphasize that not every decision by municipal officers automatically subjects the municipality to § 1983 liability. Municipal liability attaches only where the decisionmaker possess final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action ordered. The fact that a particular official — even a policymaking official — has discretion in the exercise of particular functions does not, without more, give rise to municipal liability based on an exercise of that discretion. The official must also be responsible for establishing final government policy respecting such activity before the municipality can be held liable. Authority to make municipal policy may be granted directly by a legislative enactment or may be delegated by an official who possesses such authority, and of course, whether an official had final policymaking authority is a question of state law____We hold that municipal liability under § 1983 attaches where — and only where — a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives by the official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question. Id. at 482-83, 106 S.Ct. 1292 (emphasis added; footnotes omitted) (citing Okla. City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 822-24, 105 S.Ct. 2427, 85 L.Ed.2d 791 (1985)). The Pembaur Court also noted, citing Monell, that “official policy” under § 1983 may encompass “custom or usage” even in the absence of an affirmative decision to adopt such policy by the relevant policymakers. Id. at 481 n. 10, 106 S.Ct. 1292 (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018). For purposes of § 1983, a “custom” is a legal institution that is permanent and established, but is not authorized by •written law. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018. Before a custom can be the basis for a civil rights violation, the custom must be “so permanent and well settled as to constitute a ‘custom or usage’ with the force of law.” Id. Subsequently, the Court has reiterated that (1) state law determines which municipal officials possess policymaking authority; (2) a municipal official must possess the authority to establish policy with respect to the particular decision upon which the suit is based; and (3) policymaking authority cannot be equated with discretionary authority. St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 124-27, 108 S.Ct. 915, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988). Thus, “when an official’s discretionary decisions are constrained by policies not of that official’s making, those policies, rather than the official’s departures from them, are the act of the municipality.” Id. at 127, 108 S.Ct. 915. Further, identification of those officials whose decisions represent official policy of the local governmental unit “is itself a legal question to be resolved by the trial judge.” Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 737, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989). In construing and applying these precedents, the Sixth Circuit has, for example, declined to impose liability upon the City of Cleveland, Ohio based on the Chief of Police’s decision to require the plaintiffs police cadets to undergo drug testing without due process. Feliciano v. City of Cleveland, 988 F.2d 649 (6th Cir.1993). In reaching that decision, the Court considered whether the Chief of Police had authority to make final policy regarding drug testing of police or, in the alternative, whether a final policymaker for the City had ratified the Chiefs decision. First, the Court observed that to decide whether “final authority to make municipal policy is vested in a particular official, we must resort to state law[, including] ‘state and local positive law,’ such as statutes, ordinances, and regulations, and less formal sources of law such as local practice and custom.” Id. at 655 (quoting Jett, 491 U.S. at 737, 109 S.Ct. 2702). Upon reviewing the applicable “positive law,” the City Charter of Cleveland, the Court determined that the Chief of Police was subordinate to the Director of Public Safety, and the plaintiffs had not pointed to any evidence indicating that the Director of Public Safety had delegated authority to make final policy regarding drug testing to the Chief of Police. With respect to the plaintiffs’ argument that the Police Chief had such authority by “custom,” the Court found that, even though the Police Chief had apparent discretionary authority to issue policy statements on drug use and drug testing of police, the plaintiffs [had] not produced evidence to show that there exists a custom with the force of law that makes the chief of police the final policymaking official with respect to the drug testing of police. The evidence that they have produced merely indicates at best that the Chief of Police has the discretionary authority to produce policy statements. Discretion to act is not to be confused with policymaking authority; no municipal liability results where an official merely has discretion to act because subjecting a municipality to liability in such a situation would be “indistinguishable” from respondeat superior liability. Id. at 656 (citing Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 126, 108 S.Ct. 915). Cf. Adkins v. Bd. of Educ. of Magoffin County, Ky., 982 F.2d 952, 959 (6th Cir.1993) (holding that “a person who has authority only to recommend, and whose recommendations can be implemented only upon subsequent approval by a governing body,” is not a “final policymaker,” and citing Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 130, 108 S.Ct. 915, as authority for the principle that “[sjimply going along with discretionary decisions made by one’s subordinates ... is not a delegation to them of the authority to make policy”); Mansfield Apartment Owners Ass’n v. City of Mansfield, 988 F.2d 1469 (6th Cir.1993) (holding that plaintiff landowners were entitled to a hearing under the city’s regulations, but that the city was not liable under § 1983 for the conduct of its nonpolicymaking employees who acted contrary to the polices of the city in denying the plaintiffs a hearing). The Sixth Circuit has also held that to establish municipal liability under Monell a plaintiff must “identify the policy, connect the policy to the city itself and show that the particular injury was incurred because of the execution of that policy.” Coogan v. City of Wixom, 820 F.2d 170, 176 (6th Cir.1987) (overruled on other grounds), cited in Garner v. Memphis Police Dep’t, 8 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir.1993). On the basis of these precedents, the City argues in the case at bar that it cannot be hable under § 1983 for City Planner James Lech’s alleged denial of or delay in the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy to Layman Lessons. In response, Layman Lessons argues that the City of Millersville, through the actions of the Planning Commission or City Manager Robert Mobley, ratified James Lech’s “actions in denying Layman Lessons a permit and then delayed approval of the permit by imposing an arbitrary buffer strip requirement.” (Doc. No. 81, at 23.) With respect specifically to the alleged denial or delay of its Certifícate of Occupancy based upon the purported pendency of the Proposed NP-1 Ordinance, Layman Lessons has not expressly “identified] the policy, connected] the policy to the city itself and show[n] that the particular injury was incurred because of the execution of that policy.” Coogan, 820 F.2d at 176. Assuming Layman Lessons’ version of events to be true, Layman Lessons was either wrongfully denied a Certificate of Occupancy when James Lech told Louie Johnston in no uncertain terms that Layman Lessons’ application would be denied based on the Proposed Ordinance, or that such denial was, at that point, inevitable. City Manager Robert Mobley allegedly told Mr. Johnston that he supported whatever James Lech had said. Even giving Layman Lessons the benefit of the doubt and drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor, there is no evidence in the record that James Lech or Robert Mobley had authority unilaterally to deny any applicant’s request for a Certificate of Occupancy based on an inapplicable Proposed Ordinance. Rather, pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 13-7-201, the “chief legislative body” of any municipality has the authority to control zoning in that municipality. Under Tenn.Code Ann. § 6-20-206, the “chief legislative body” of a town that has adopted a City Manager/Commissioner form of government, pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 6-18-101 through 6-20-220, is the board of commissioners. Thus, the body with final authority regarding zoning issues in the City of Millersville is the City’s Board of Commissioners. Mr. Mobley, as City Manager, has those powers enumerated in Tenn.Code Ann. § 6-21-108, including among others the power to (1) see that the City’s laws and ordinances are enforced; (2) make personnel decisions concerning all City department heads and subordinates, subject to the personnel rules and regulations adopted by the Commission; (3) supervise the heads of all officers and departments of the City established by the City’s Charter or created by the Board of Commissioners; (4) execute contracts on behalf of the City; (5) act as purchasing agent for the City and the City’s business; (6) oversee the City’s budget and finances; (7) attend Board meetings and take part in discussions, but not to vote; (8) recommend measures for adoption to the Board. The City Manager does not have control or decisionmaking authority over zoning decisions. Further, pursuant to The Zoning Ordinance of Millersville, Tennessee, contained in Chapter 90 of the Millersville Municipal Code, the city building inspector has the power to issue all certificates of occupancy (Doc. No. 66-3, at 6 (Millersville Mun.Code § 90-52)), and to refuse to issue a certificate if the building or premises at issue is found not to conform with the Zoning Ordinance. In that event, the building inspector is to indicate in writing the reason for the refusal. (Doc. No. 66-3, at 9 (Millersville Mun.Code § 90-55).) Although neither party has pointed to a specific zoning ordinance outlining the powers of the Planning Commission, according to uncontroverted evidence presented by the City, the Board of Commissioners of Millersville has, by custom if not by “positive law,” delegated to the Planning Commission the power to consider all applications of Certificates of Occupancy that implicate “zoning issues” and not merely building code and safety issues. James Lech, as City Planner, has the ability to make a recommendation to the Planning Com