Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REBECCA R. PALLMEYER, District Judge. Plaintiff Irshad Learning Center, a Muslim religious and educational group, seeks a Conditional Use Permit to use property in unincorporated DuPage County for religious services and educational purposes. DuPage officials have denied the request. In this lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that the denial violates its rights under the United States Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Defendant has moved for summary judgment on all Counts [77], Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment on Counts II, III, VII, IX, and X [81], For the reasons set forth below, the motions are granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND The following facts are drawn from the pleadings and the parties’ Local Rule 56.1 submissions. Irshad Learning Center (hereinafter “ILC” or “Plaintiff’) is a religious institution incorporated under the Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation Act. (Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. [96], ¶ 3.) ILC currently conducts a Thursday evening prayer service at College of DuPage facilities and a Saturday afternoon youth education session at the Islamic Foundation School of Villa Park, also located in DuPage County. {Id. ¶¶3-6.). ILC also conducts services on religious holidays and other events. (Def.’s 56.1 Resp. [100], ¶ 2.) ILC’s activities are conducted at rented spaces at the Steeple Run Center, the Islamic Foundation School in Villa Park, the College of DuPage, a church in Woodridge, and a community center in Des Plaines. (Pl.’s 56.1 Stmt. [83], ¶ 6.) Most of ILC’s members reside in DuPage County and are of Iranian origin and/or descent. {Id. ¶¶ 1-2.) In March 2008, ILC purchased the property located at 25W030 75th Street, unincorporated Naperville, DuPage County, Illinois, which is the subject of this suit. (PL’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 3.) ILC’s Property Search ILC began its search for a. suitable location at which to permanently conduct its regular activities in 2003. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 6.) Between 2003 and 2008, ILC made unsuccessful offers to purchase four other properties, including a church in Schaumburg and another church in unincorporated DuPage County. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 7; PL’s 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 12, 16.) At some point, ILC purchased a property in Lisle, Illinois, which is also located in DuPage County, on which it initially intended to construct a new structure for its activities. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 7; Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶15.) ILC later decided to sell that property, claiming that it lacked the funds to build a new structure at that location, and instead sought to purchase a property with an existing structure. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 7; PL’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 15.) In March 2008, ILC’s search for a permanent home appeared to have ended when it purchased the subject property. (PL’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 8.) ILC’s Property ILC’s property is a 2.9-acre improved parcel located in unincorporated Naperville, DuPage County, Illinois. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 9; PL’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 3.) The main structure on the property is a large single-family residence that was converted by its previous owner into a private school. (Ir-shad Learning Center Zoning Request [86-5] (hereinafter “Zoning Request”), Ex. A to 12/10/08 ILC. Zoning Application [(hereinafter “Zoning Application”), Ex. EE to PL’s Mot. for Summ. J. [81] (hereinafter “PL’s Mot.”), at 2.) An aerial photograph of the property and the surrounding area, and a site plan overlay are attached as Appendices A and B to this opinion respectively. As the map and site plan depict, the property fronts the north side of 75th Street, which is a four-lane divided highway. (Id.) The property is bordered on the north by Fox Meadows, a single family residential subdivision. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 10.) West of the property is also the Fox Meadows residential subdivision, beyond which is the Fox Run Square Shopping Center, which houses Dominick’s Fine Foods, Blockbuster, Ace Hardware, and other retailers. (Id.) To the eást of the property is a single family home which also fronts 75th Street, and further east on the north side of 75th Street is the Peter Pan Early Learning Center. (Id.) South of 75th Street are the New Day Montessori School and single family homes. (Id.) ILC’s property directly adjoins improved parcels containing single family residences along its western, northern and eastern property lines. (PL’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 18.) The parcels along its western and northern property lines are zoned residential under the City of Naperville’s Zoning Ordinance, and the unincorporated parcel immediately adjacent on the east is zoned R-l (single-family residential) under the County’s Zoning Ordinance. (Id. ¶ Í9.) The only vehicular access to the property is from the outside west-bound lane of 75th Street. According to 2007 Illinois Department of Transportation traffic counts, 75th Street served an average of 35,600 vehicles daily. (Zoning Request at 2.) During the last year in which the County collected traffic volume data, 2006, the highest volume of traffic on 75th Street adjacent to the Subject Property occurred between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 11;. Def.’s Resp. to PL’s Request for Admission [85-20], Ex. X to PL’s Mot., ¶ 12.) The Balkwill School The previous owners of the property, the Balkwill Family, purchased the property in 1994 and began operating a private school on the property the same year. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 9.) In 2006, the DuPage County Board granted the Balkwills a Conditional Use Permit (the “Balkwill Permit” or “Balkwill Ordinance”) to use the property for a private school.' (Id. ¶ 17.) The Balkwill Permit allowed for enrollment of sixty-five children, ages 3 to 12, and at least five additional adults, including two staff, to participate in daily school activities. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 17; Balkwill Ordinance [86-3], Ex. CC to to PL’s Mot., at 2.) The Permit also permitted three residents. (Pl.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 17.) The Balkwill Permit was first considered at a Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) public hearing on November 10, 2005 and was recommended for approval by the ZBA on December 19, 2005. (Id.) The permit was ultimately granted on January 10, 2006. (Id.) The Balkwill School’s hours of operation were limited by the Conditional Use Ordinance to 7:80 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. (Id.) The Balkwill School was not authorized to conduct activities after 12:30 p.m. on weekdays or anytime on the weekends. (Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶27.) There are seven paved parking spaces located in front of the main structure which were used by the Balkwill School. (Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶28; Site Plan [86-7], Ex. GG to PL’s Mot.) Neither party disputes that ILC may use the property under the exact same conditions that the DuPage County Board approved for the Balkwill School. (Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. [78] (hereinafter “Def.’s Mem.”), at 15; see Balkwill Ordinance [listing conditions upon which the Conditional Use was approved and including a site plan of the property to which the Balkwill School was required to adhere].) Zoning Regulations and Procedures Pursuant to the authority granted by the Illinois General Assembly, including 55 ILCS 5/5-12001 et seq., the County Board adopted the DuPage County Zoning Ordinance, codified at Chapter 37 of the Du-Page County Code. (DuPage County Zoning Ordinance [79-1] (hereinafter “County Zoning Ordinance”), Ex. A-l to Def.’s 56.1 Stmt. [79].) The County Zoning Ordinance divides the unincorporated area of the County into several zoning districts and, for each district, identifies each allowed land use as either a “Permitted Use” or “Conditional Use.” (County Zoning Ordinance §§ 37-700.1 & .2) Sections 37-700.1 and :2, which are applicable to residential zoning districts only, provide that a “Permitted Use” may exist as of right within a zoning district, while a “Conditional Use” must be authorized as set forth in Section 37-1413. (Id.) ILC’s property is designated an R-l Zoning District (single-family residential), which authorizes the operation of religious institutions with a Conditional Use Permit. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 16.) Although the County Zoning Ordinance does not specifically define “religious institutions,” the Zoning Ordinance identifies “chapels, churches, synagogues, temples and other religious institutions including parsonages and rectories” as Conditional Uses in the several residential zoning districts, including the R-l district. (County Zoning Ordinance § 37-701.2 [79-1], Ex. A-2 to Def.’s 56.1 Stmt.) The above-described classification was adopted by the County Board as part of a 1985 comprehensive text amendment. (Def.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 8.) Prior to that text amendment, chapels, churches, synagogues, temples and other religious institutions, including parsonages and rectories, were permitted as of right in the residential zoning districts. (Id.) Zoning proceedings in DuPage County involve four different entities: the Department of Economic Development and Planning (“Planning Department”); the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”); the County Development Committee (“CDC”) of the County Board; and the County Board. Those seeking zoning relief must first file their application with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Zoning staff may assist an applicant in completing his/her application, and will advise applicants of the “requirements and standards for zoning relief.” (Zoning Procedures at 1.) The ZBA then schedules a public hearing on the proposed application at which the petitioner or an agent must present testimony concerning the proposed zoning relief. (Id. at 4. ) The public hearing must begin no later than sixty days, and must conclude no later than 120 days, after the application is submitted, with some enumerated exceptions. (DuPage County Code 37-1415.-A.) Questions may be directed at the petitioner from zoning staff, ZBA members, and members of the public. (Zoning Procedures at 4.) The ZBA then makes a recommendation on the application to the County Development Committee, and the County Development Committee makes a recommendation to the County Board, which renders a final decision. (Id.) The CDC may also opt to remand a petition to the ZBA “for reconsideration of its vote where significant new information has been made available.” (Id. at 13.) Pursuant to 55 ILCS 5/5-12009.5, a Conditional Use may only be granted after a public hearing is conducted before the ZBA. The standards for a Conditional Use outlined in Section 37-1413 are as follows: A. That the granting of any conditional use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, detrimental to the public welfare, or in conflict with the County’s Comprehensive Plan for development; and specifically that the granting of the conditional use will not: 1. Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; 2. Increase the hazard from fire or other dangers to said property; 3. Diminish the value of land and buildings in the vicinity of the proposed conditional use; 4. Unduly increase traffic congestion in the public streets and highways; 5. Increase the potential for flood damages to adjacent property; 6. Incur additional public expense for fire protection, rescue or relief; or 7. Otherwise impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare of the inhabitants of DuPage County, nor will it otherwise create a nuisance. (County Zoning Ordinance § 37-1413.A [79-1], Ex. A-4 to Def.’s 56.1 Stmt.) Section 37-1415 of the County Zoning Ordinance provides for “public hearings” to gather evidence and hear testimony concerning each applicant’s (petitioner’s) request for zoning relief, including “Conditional Use” petitions. (County Zoning Ordinance § 37-1415 [79-1], Ex. A-5 to Def.’s 56.1 Stmt.) Plaintiff’s Conditional Use Application Plaintiff first filed a Conditional Use Application for use of the property as a “learning center” on August 19, 2008, without the assistance of counsel. (Pl.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 23; Def.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff later retained counsel, and the “learning center” application was withdrawn at a November 20, 2008 ZBA public hearing. (PL’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 30.) On December 10, 2008, Plaintiff re-applied for zoning approval through its zoning attorney for an R-l Conditional Use to operate a “religious institution.” (PL’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 31.) ILC’s Conditional Use Application and Exhibit A thereto, a document entitled “Irshad Learning Center Zoning Request” (collectively the “Application” or “Petition”), describes the property and ILC’s proposed use. The Application requested use of the existing structures to hold religious services on Thursday evenings. (Zoning Request at 2.) These services were to begin at sunset, but no earlier than 6:00 p.m., and to end three hours later. (Id.) ILC also sought to conduct religious education classes for fifty-five students on Saturdays from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (Id.) The Application proposed a 100-person maximum occupancy for the main worship area. (Zoning Request at 3.) The Application stated that ILC did not anticipate membership to grow beyond the seventy-five members it claimed to have at the time, and stated that approximately seventy people would occupy the property during ILC’s peak usage. (Zoning Request at 3; PL’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 32.) The Application also called for twenty-seven parking spaces in front of the main building as well as twelve “banked” spaces in the west yard to be built if the twenty-seven proposed spaces were insufficient. (Zoning Request at 3.) Prior to the first ZBA public hearing on ILC’s submissions, ILC hosted meetings for neighboring residents on November 18, 2008 and January 13, 2009, during which ILC’s directors and trustees presented information regarding ILC’s proposed use of the property. (PL’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 35.) In a letter to Paul Hoss of the DuPage County Department of Zoning and Planning, ILC’s zoning attorney explained that the November meeting was a broad discussion, airing neighbors’ basic questions regarding what ILC was as well as its goals for the property. (Jan. 14, 2009 Letter to Paul Hoss at 1 [79-20], Ex. N to Def.’s 56.1 Stmt.) Questions regarding lighting and noise were also addressed at this first meeting. (Id.) At the January meeting, the neighbors had an opportunity to review ILC’s Application and the other documents ILC submitted to the ZBA in December. (Id.) Discussions at the January meeting focused on lighting, noise, and garbage storage related to ILC’s proposed use. (Id.) ILC’s counsel reported that neighbors also expressed concerns that future expansion by ILC would negatively affect property values. (Id. at 1-2.) February 26, 2009 ZBA Hearing On February 26, 2009, the DuPage County Zoning Board of Appeals held its first public hearing on ILC’s Application. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 34; PL’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 36.) ILC’s zoning attorney, Scott Day, presented the ZBA with the Application and other supporting documents. (Feb. 26, 2009 ZBA Hr’g Tr. [86-8], Ex. HH to PL’s Mot., at 5-6; PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 34.) Several representatives of ILC were also present at the hearing, but Day informed the ZBA that the representatives would not testify unless the Board had questions for them. (Feb. 26, 2009 ZBA Hr’g Tr. at 5.) The ILC representatives were sworn in but were never questioned. (Id. at 9.) Day presented testimony on behalf of ILC, describing the organization and its proposed use of the property. Day’s testimony was consistent with, and largely duplicative of, the information provided in ILC’s Application and the supporting documents. (See Id. at 5-35.) According to Day, ILC was composed of approximately twenty-five families, and the organization did not expect significant membership growth. (Id. at 23.) Day testified that ILC’s proposed use for the property included Thursday services open to all members that would start at sunset, but no earlier than 6:00 p.m., and end by 10:30 p.m. (Id. at 24.) ILC also intended to conduct religious education classes for approximately eighty-five children from 11:00 а. m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays. (Id. at 25.) Day testified that, in addition to these regular activities, ILC would conduct occasional “religious holiday events.” (Id.) The dates' of these events would change each year, based on the religious calendar. (Id.) These holiday events would include Ramadan services, which, as Day explained, would consist of five to ten consecutive evening services, shorter than the regular Thursday evening services. (Id. at 26.) Day also testified that ILC sought to hold “special events,” which would include regular services associated with events such as weddings, funerals, and congregational meetings. (Id. at 26-27.) ILC had held approximately twenty to twenty-five such special events each year over the previous three years at rented facilities. (Id. at 26.) Day described the scope of the activities ILC had previously conducted at other facilities. Day testified that between 2006 and 2009, most of ILC’s meetings were conducted in private homes with fewer than forty attendees. (Id. at 28.) ILC also held meetings at Steeple Run Des Plaines Clubhouse with fifty to eighty attendees, at College of DuPage in “capacity rooms between 80 and 120,” and at College of DuPage with 350 attendees for two larger events. (Id.) Day explained that the two larger meetings were multi-congregational events involving ILC and other groups, and that ILC did not intend to hold such meetings at the subject property. (Id.) Day also described future uses contemplated by ILC. Day testified that ILC anticipated running a summer program for children. (Id. at 29.) Though he did not specifically provide the days of the week or hours during which this summer program would likely operate, Day explained that this summer program would include mentoring and tutoring for children when they are not in school and would accommodate eighty-five students plus staff. (Id. at 29-30.) Regarding the number of students, Day acknowledged that regardless of the success of the program, there would “be a physical limit to this facility set by the County.” (Id. at 30.) Day also described additional activities which included religious mentoring of groups of less than ten participants, and religious family and marriage counseling for groups of less than six at a time. (Id.) Again, ILC’s Application and Day’s testimony do not specify the frequency or hours of these activities. Day also testified that ILC contemplated having a live-in caretaker and providing temporary housing for visiting scholars. (Id. at 37.) Day informed the ZBA that the existing structures on the property would not be changed. (Id. at 20, 31.) Day testified, however, that ILC intended to add twenty parking spaces to the seven existing spaces, and sought approval for twelve additional banked spaces that would not be built “at the inception.” (Id. at 31.) The twenty additional parking spaces would require 3,950-square-feet of new paving on the property, (id) but Day assured the ZBA that ILC sought no variance from the DuPage County Stormwater Ordinance. (Id. at 34.) ILC also submitted a lighting plan that, according to Day, showed that if additional lighting were installed, ILC could comply with the standards for lighting at the property line as well as City of Naperville regulations concerning how much light leaves the property. (Id. at 34-35.) Day testified, however, that ILC did not intend to install additional lighting, and would do so only if the ZBA requested it. (Id. at 34.) During questioning by the Board members, Member Loftus stated that ILC would have to determine whether or not it would have lights explaining, “[i]t’s not for us to say you can do this. You make your case.” (Id. at 47.) Day deferred to the Board, responding, “tell us what you want by way of code compliance and we’ll do either one.” (Id. at 48.) At the close of his presentation, Day adopted the “written advocacy” included in the Application as part of his testimony in support of ILC’s petition. (Id. at 37.) The Board Members then questioned Day about several issues. When asked, if he anticipated anyone attempting to park on 75th Street, Day responded that ILC’s goal was to ensure adequate parking on site, and that the twelve additional banked parking spaces were included in the plan in ease the number of spaces required by the code became insufficient. (Id. at 39-40.) ZBA member Hakim asked if ILC’s religious activities included “amplified call to worship” or “animal sacrifices?” (Id. at 40-41.) Day responded that they did not. (Id. at 41.) Members Hakim and Loftus also asked what ILC would do to prevent the neighbors from being disturbed by vehicle noise and lights, as well as the noise generated by people talking as they exited the building after services at 10:30 p.m. (Id. at 41, 43.) Day responded by stating that if the community had a noise abatement ordinance, ILC could not violate it. (Id. at 41.) He also stated that there was not “anything different about any Islamic church in relation to residential properties than there is to a Hindu temple, a Jewish synagogue or a Christian church” -and, regardless of closing time, there had not been problems associated with churches in other communities. (Id. at 42.) Finally, Day stated that he believed the traffic on 75th Street generated more noise than anything that would come from the property. (Id. at 44.) Noting that people like to “hang out in their back-yard” on Saturdays, Member Hakim also asked how outdoor play time during the Saturday religious school would affect the neighborhood. (Id.) Day responded that the three-acre site provided sufficient land to accommodate such activities, and that he did not believe that children playing outside a church during the day would pose a problem. (Id. at 45.) Day also reiterated that the activities included in the Application were the only uses ILC anticipated for the property. (Id. at 47.) Several property owners from the area surrounding ILC’s property (referred to by the parties collectively as the “Objectors”) appeared at the ZBA public hearing on February 26, 2009. The Objectors testified and presented documents in opposition to the Plaintiffs petition. (Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 52.) Daniel Wallace, whose home is adjacent to ILC’s property, spoke on behalf of the Objectors. (Feb. 26, 2009 ZBA Hr’g Tr. at 49.) Wallace began by explaining that the Objectors did not “begrudge the members of Irshad Learning Center the right to assemble and practice their faith according to the constitutional rights we enjoy.” (Id. at 50-51.) He also stated that the Objectors viewed a “well-planned and properly-developed religious institution as at least potentially a very welcome addition to the neighborhood.” (Id. at 51.) According to Wallace, the Objectors’ concerns were “lack of planning, lack of proper development and the adequacy of the property for the intended use.” He also voiced concerns about the adequacy and credibility of the information ILC presented to the board, as well, as concerns about lighting, parking, drainage, adequacy of water or sewers, and fire protection. (Id. at 51-53.) The Objectors called for studies concerning the adequacy of water and septic service, fire safety, and traffic. (Id. at 53-54.) The Objectors also believed that ILC’s claim that it did not intend to grow was “ludicrous, because it is in the nature of religious institutions that they seek new members.” (Id. at 55.) Even without growth, the Objectors were concerned that ILC’s activities were too excessive for the property, and that ILC’s intended use was substantially different and in excess of the prior Conditional Use of the Balkwill School. (Id. at 55-56.) Further, Wallace reported that the Objectors believed that ILC’s actual use would exceed the proposed use described in the Application.' (Id. at 65.) The Objectors were reportedly concerned about the number of nights of activity and hours of operation, as well as the number of cars and people that would occupy the property. (Id. at 60.) The Objectors were skeptical of ILC’s assurance that its services would end by 10:30 p.m.; they reported that, according to the director of Steeple Run, ILC had asked for permission to use that facility until 2:00 a.m., and they presented an e-mail message from ILC showing that some meetings went as late as 3:00 a.m. (Id. at 59-60.) Mr. Wallace also pointed out that the sun sets in the summer as late as 8:30 p.m., so if a service typically lasts three hours, it would not finish by 10:30 p.m.. (Id. at 58-59.) Wallace pointed out that ILC’s original (August 19, 2008) application for a learning center had called for thirty-nine parking spaces, generating suspicion on the part of the Objectors that ILC actually required thirty-nine spaces to meet its parking needs, but had reduced the number to avoid having to put in a driveway. (Id. at 60.) Further, Wallace testified that some of the Objectors went to an ILC meeting at Steeple Run in November 2008 at which ■they counted sixty-five cars in the lot, and the Islamic Federation Day School in January where they counted seventy-five cars. (Id. at 61.) He also testified that the director of Steeple Run informed them that ILC filled its lot, which contains sixty parking spaces, in excess of capacity, and when they visited the location, cars were parked on berms. (Id. at 61.) The Objectors expressed the concern that the intensity of the use would constitute a nuisance. (Id. at 67-68.) Wallace testified that the director of Steeple Run told the Objectors that its facility has a capacity of 110, and the director believed that ILC exceeded that capacity on multiple occasions. (Id. at 63.) The Objectors also noted that ILC’s IRS Form 990s state that ILC serves as many as 350-370 people. (Id. at 71.) Eight other residents from the surrounding neighborhood went on record endorsing Wallace’s statements and expressing additional concerns regarding noise from engines starting at night; headlights at night (id. at 72); a lack of trees, berms, fencing or other buffering to prevent light from disturbing the homes that border the property (id. at 74-75); and loss of existing trees and the buffer they provide. (Id. at 77.) Finally, one of the Objectors testified that the City of Naperville’s Fire Prevention Supervisor had warned that the property’s fire prevention system is inadequate. (Id. at 78.) Plaintiffs counsel requested time to review the objections and an opportunity to return and present testimony in response. (Id. at 80.) The hearing was continued to March 12, 2009. (Id. at 80-81.) ILC’s Rebuttal On March 11, 2009, Day submitted a “Rebuttal Conditional Use Submittal.” (See Rebuttal Conditional Use Submittal [86-9] (hereinafter “Rebuttal”), Ex. II to Pl.’s Mot., at 1-8.) The Rebuttal reiterated that ILC intended to use the property for religious uses including evening prayer services, religious education, weddings, funerals, and congregational gatherings. (Id. at 14.) In response to the Objectors’ concerns regarding a lack of studies and drainage, sewer, and fire safety issues, the Rebuttal noted that the “DuPage County Board already made findings that ‘all structures on the property comply with all applicable drainage, fire, and building codes, and that the subject property is inspected annually by the Naperville Fire Department and State Fire Marshal.’ ” (Id. at 9-10.) ILC also pointed out that the DuPage County Department of Transportation had no objections to the petition, and the County Stormwater Permitting Manager had recommended approval on behalf of the Stormwater Division of the Department of Economic Development. (Id. at 10.) Regarding the intensity of ILC’s proposed use, the Rebuttal noted that the Balkwill permit approved use of the building for a total of seventy people. (Id.) ILC reiterated that it had seventy-five members, its Application was for a maximum worshiper limit of 100, and such an occupancy limit was consistent with the applicable code. (Id. at 10, 14.) The Rebuttal also stated that the number of proposed parking spaces exceeds the minimum required by the County code. (Id. at 10-11.) ILC also compared its proposed use of the three-acre site to Our Saviour’s Lutheran Church, which is located on a 3.6-acre plot and has 4,500 members, a worship capacity of 520, and 258 parking spaces. (Id. at 11.) In response to the Objectors’ assertion that ILC’s meetings run as late as 3:00 a.m., ILC provided a letter from the office manager at Steeple Run which states that ILC rented that facility to conduct prayer services, and had requested a 3:00 a.m. close on just three of 123 lease dates. (Mar. 1, 2009 Steeple Run Letter [98-6], Ex. D to Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. [95] (hereinafter “Pl.’s Opp’n”), at 1.) The letter explained that on all other occasions, ILC rented the facility from sundown to 10:00 p.m., and that there have been no complaints regarding parking or noise. (Id.) The exhibits to ILC’s Rebuttal also include letters from Courtland Square Community Center of Des Plaines, the Islamic Foundation, and the College of DuPage. The Courtland Square letter, confirms that ILC conducted fifteen Thursday evening prayer services at Courtland’s clubhouse between 2007 and 2009. (Mar. 10, 2009 Courtland Square Letter [98-8], Ex. F to Pl.’s Opp’n, at 1.) These meetings, which ended no later than 10:30 p.m., normally had fifty attendees and never more than ninety. (Id.) The property manager stated that ILC always complied with rules and regulations regarding maintenance, parking, and noise. (Id.) The Islamic Foundation letter confirms that there are approximately fifty students enrolled in the Saturday School ILC conducts at that facility. (Mar. 10, 2009 Islamic Foundation Letter [98-7], Ex. E to Pl.’s Opp’n, at 1) The Islamic Foundation letter also states that ILC held a five-day holiday event in a lecture hall with an eighty-five person capacity, and a Persian New Year event in a 300-person capacity banquet hall. (Id.) These events ended at various times between 5:00 p.m. and 10:30 p.m., and no complaints were ever filed regarding ILC’s conduct. (Id.) The College of DuPage letters state that ILC had rented facilities for numerous events ranging in attendance from 50 to 300 people, and that ILC adhered to the rental requirements. (See College of DuPage Letters [86-10], Ex. JJ to Pl.’s Mot.) May 14, 2009 ZBA Hearing On March 12, 2009, ZBA continued the matter to May 14, 2009 to allow the Board members and Objectors an opportunity to review ILC’s .Rebuttal, which had been submitted the previous evening, and to give the Objectors time to submit written responses. (See Mar. 12, 2009 ZBA Hr’g Tr. [79-24], Ex. R to Def.’s 56.1 Stmt.) On May 14, 2009, representatives for the Objectors testified, reiterating their concerns about the frequency of ILC meetings, its hours of operation, and the number of people and cars that would be on the property. (Id. at 7.) The Objectors expressed particular concerns about what they believed to be uncertainty regarding the number of parking spaces required to meet ILC’s needs. (Id.) They explained that they did not want the County to require ILC to put in more spaces; instead, they were opposed to turning the open green space bordering their properties into a parking lot. (Id. at 8.) The Objectors remained concerned that ILC had “significantly understated the intended intensity of the planned property use,” making it impossible to determine whether ILC satisfied the relevant zoning criteria. (Id. at '5.) The Objectors requested that the County require ILC to “implement appropriate measures to eliminate negative effects and/or place restrictions on the conditional use permit.” (Id. at 6.) The Objectors urged the County to deny the Application if ILC proved unwilling or unable to mitigate its impact on the surrounding properties. (Id.) The Objectors submitted a'written response to ILC’s Rebuttal.- (May 14, 2009 ZBA Hr’g Tr. [79-23], Ex. Q to Def.’s 56.1 Stmt., at 3-4.) In addition, a neighbor who did not attend the hearing tendered a letter described as “a letter stating their experience at Steeple Run with the number of cars on three separate occasions.” (Id. at 10.) ILC’s zoning attorney urged the ZBA to rule on the application as submitted, not on the basis of the Objectors’ assumption that ILC would later violate the law. (Id. at 13-14.) Day responded to the “lack of studies” objection by again pointing out that the County Planning Department had circulated ILC’s Application to all the relevant departments and that no objections were raised. (Id. at 15-17.) Day also reiterated that ILC was asking for a permit that would allow 100 worshipers, twenty-seven to thirty-nine parking spaces, and a 10:30 p.m. closing time. (Id. at 19.) Day testified that ILC sought to conduct fifty-two regular Thursday worship services, as many as ten Ramadan services based on the church calendar, and twenty to twenty-five special events each year. (Id.) Day also testified that ILC was not using Steeple Run on at least one of the dates the Objectors claimed to have counted cars in the parking lot. (Id. at 21.) Day ended his testimony by offering to answer any questions. (Id. at 27.) Chairman Kartholl declined and closed the hearing. (Id.) June 4, 2009 ZBA Findings Prior to the June 4, 2009 ZBA meeting, County zoning staff, in consultation with ZBA staff, prepared a “Flyer Sheet.” The Flyer Sheet contains a description of the property, a summary of ILC’s zoning request, the information submitted by the Objectors, and ZBA findings. (See June 4, 2009 ZBA Flyer Sheet [86-11], Ex. KK to Pl.’s Mot.) Section VII, “Irshad Learning Center Proposed Use of Property,” outlines the time and frequency of the various services described in ILC’s Application and its zoning attorney’s testimony. (Id. at 6-8.) Section VII(A)(3), “meeting specifics,” lists the meeting types and attendance figures from the various facilities at which ILC had previously rented space, consistent with ILC’s zoning attorney’s testimony. (Id. at 7-8.) Section VIII, “Site Plan,” outlines ILC’s proposed 100-person maximum occupancy of the main worship área, the number of parking spaces, and its photometric plan for exteri- or lighting. (Id.' at 8-9.) There is no indication iri the Flyer Sheet that any aspect of ILC’s site plan failed to comply with the relevant codes and regulations. The Flyer Sheet states that ILC’s úse will not cause traffic congestion in the surrounding subdivisions, because these subdivisions do not have access to ILC’s property. (Id. at 9.) The Flyer Sheet notes, further, that ILC intends to leave the existing landscaping in place and will include more landscaping if required by the County. (Id. at 10.) The Flyer Sheet also reprints pages 8 to 18 of the Objectors’ response to ILC’s Rebuttal, in which the Objectors reiterated their concerns regarding a lack of studies of the impact and intensity of ILC’s proposed use. (Id. at 11.) The Objectors remained concerned that the frequency of use, hours of use, number of people on the property, and number of cars on the property was too intense. (Id.) The Objectors presented information they believed showed that ILC’s actual use would exceed its proposed use. (Id. at 12-18.) The Objectors noted concerns that ILC’s use of the property would constitute a nuisance, increase the risk of flood damage, and diminish the value of the neighboring properties. (Id. at 12.) The Objectors also attacked ILC’s ' credibility, claiming that ILC had intentionally presented the ZBA with incomplete and inaccurate information to support its Application. (Id. at 18-19.) The ZBA concluded that ILC had not demonstrated that granting its Conditional Use was “in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, detrimental to the public welfare, or. in conflict with the County’s comprehensive plan for development....” (Id. at 21.) According to the ZBA, [ILC’s] testimony and correlating exhibits appear to contradict or at the very least do not sufficiently address parking and utility needs relative to the standards below associated with a use that exceeds 75 patrons as evidenced by petitioner’s own testimony and testimony of objectors relative to the current operation of the Irshad Organization. (Id. at 21.) Specifically,, the ZBA found that both ILC and the Objectors presented documents and testimony that contradicted ILC’s assertions regarding “the number of patrons using the facility, time of use and intensity of use .... ” (Id. at 20.) The ZBA also found that ILC’s claim that it has only seventy-five members conflicted with the information presented by ILC and the Objectors. (Id.) Based on these findings, the ZBA concluded that [ILC] has not thoroughly demonstrated that the proposed parking and circulation on the property and the septic and well conditions and considerations for the development as evidenced in [ILC’s] correlating exhibits will be sufficient to accommodate the number of patrons that practically will be using the property based on [ILC’s] testimony and the objectors [sic] testimony regarding current operations of [ILC].... (Id.) In support of this conclusion, the ZBA noted that ILC and the Objectors had presented evidence that the existing operations of ILC “at various locations are varying in intensity of use, time of operation and number of services and events beyond those represented for 75 members.” (Id.) The findings also stated that “no indication or documentation was provided as to how many patrons or facilitators would be involved” in several of the proposed uses including holiday events, religious services, summer programs, tutoring, and mentoring. (Id. at 20-21.) June 4, 2009 ZBA Recommendation to Deny At the June 4, 2009 hearing, ZBA Member Loftus moved to deny the ILC request for the Conditional Use, stating that he did not believe that ILC had made its case. (June 4, 2009 ZBA Hr’g Tr. at 4-5.) Member Loftus did not believe that ILC had sufficiently rebutted the concerns raised by the Objectors. (Id. at 5.) He suggested that the evidence showed that ILC had more members than it had revealed, meaning that its proposed use of the property “required ... a lot more work within the existing buildings and property than is allowable right now with the way it is.” (Id.) Member Ketter seconded the motion, stating that he was “not sure” what evidence was put forth by the applicant and was uncomfortable because evidence had been presented by ILC’s attorney, not members of its organization. (Id. at 6.) He described his additional basis for denying the motion as follows: “[a]nd with the concerns over whether they have-what specific amounts they are going to have for the conditional use, I am not sure that even their site planner-the changes that have to be made can be made.” While vague, as the court understands this comment, Member Ketter also believed that ILC would exceed the use described in the Application. Member Hakim concurred, citing discrepancies between the attendance numbers put forth in the petition and the evidence that was presented by ILC and the Objectors, which he believed “indieatfed] in some eases as many as 350 attendees and not 70.” (Id. at 7.) Member Hakim speculated that the property might not be able to handle the intensity of use. (Id.) Chairman Kartholl, citing that the Application was initially filed for a learning center and that the property has a swimming pool, stated that he did not believe that ILC had established that its “principal use is a religious institution.” (Id. at 7-8.) Chairman Kartholl also expressed concerns regarding the intensity of the use and parking issues. (Id. at 8.) The ZBA voted unanimously to recommend denial of ILC’s request. (Id. at 8-9.) First Remand to the ZBA On July 2, 2007, ILC’s zoning attorney sent a letter to the Chairwoman of the CDC concerning the ZBA’s recommendation to deny ILC’s Application. (See July 2, 2009 Letter to CDC [86-15], Ex. 00 to PL’s Mot.) ILC’s attorney accused the ZBA of, among other things, not making a determination based on the application before it. (Id. at 1.) He requested that the CDC return the matter to the ZBA, with instructions that the ZBA make a recommendation to the CDC based on the Application as filed, including: • Islamic religious worship services restricted to no more than 100 worshipers; • Islamic religious worship services restricted to ending no later than 10:30 p.m.; • Islamic religious education classes restricted to no more than 85 students (not to be conducted concurrent with a worship service); • 27-39 parking spaces; • No variations; and • Compliance with fire, safety, building and stormwater codes. (Id. at 1-4.) The CDC met on July 7, 2009, and voted unanimously to remand the Application to the ZBA to “issue findings in accordance with the petition that has been filed by the petitioner and include adopted rationale and explanation for findings as they have been submitted.” (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 54.) On August 4, 2009, ILC’s attorney sent another letter to both the ZBA and the CDC, noting that the CDC had remanded the matter to the ZBA for “deliberation and proper findings based upon the conditional use application ... as filed,” and urging that ILC had satisfied all seven criteria required for a conditional use by County Zoning Ordinance § 37-1413.5. (See Aug. 4, 2009 Letter to ZBA and CDC [86-18], Ex. RR to PL’s Mot.) County zoning staff issued a Flyer Sheet for the August 6, 2009 ZBA meeting which set forth specific instructions from the CDC. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 56.) At an August 6, 2009 ZBA meeting, Chairman Kartholl characterized the purpose of the CDC’s remand as to allow the Board to “clarify its findings of fact in the matter.” (Id. ¶ 55.) September 10, 2009 ZBA Findings The ZBA continued the matter to September 10, 2009, at which time the ZBA voted to adopt findings of fact and again recommended the denial of ILC’s Application. (Id. ¶ 57.) In the findings it adopted, the ZBA explained that ILC did not tender any witnesses in support of its Application and did not present any testimony relative to its exhibits, and that Day’s testimony was “made by way of argument and did not represent testimony on behalf of [ILC].” (Id. ¶¶ 57-58; Sept. 10, 2009 ZBA Memo to CDC [86-19], Ex. SS to PL’s Mot.) The new findings concluded that ILC had not demonstrated that its proposed .use was for a religious institution. The ZBA believed that “at the very least the religious aspect of the use appears to be subordinate to the general nature of the organization.” (Id. at 3.) (The ZBA did not explain what it believed the general nature of the organization to be, if not religious.) Because, in the ZBA’s view, ILC had not shown that its proposed use was for a religious institution, the ZBA found that ILC had not demonstrated that the proposed use was “in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, detrimental to the public welfare, or in conflict with the County’s comprehensive plan for development ____” (Id. at 3.) The new findings also stated that ILC did not demonstrate that “the subject property can sustain the current operations relative to parking, septic and well capacity, outside operation relative to noise and lighting, [and] internal building operation relative to occupancy capacity .... ” (Id. at 3.) According to the ZBA, ILC had not shown that the property could support and sustain ILC’s operations because the site plan and exhibits “do not appear to adequately support and at the very least are contradictory to the current operation of [ILC] at the various locations in DuPage County.” (Id.) The ZBA also found that ILC had not clearly represented the nature and extent of the activities it sought to conduct on the property. Specifically, the ZBA found that ILC had not identified the days and hours of operation and the number of patrons that would attend its events. (Id. at 3-4.) Finally, the ZBA determined that ILC had not demonstrated that it met the seven standards for a Conditional Use outlined in Section 37-1413 of the Zoning Ordinance. ILC’s Amended Application After the ZBA makes its recommendation, the application moves to the CDC for a recommendation to the County Board, which renders a final decision. (Zoning Procedures at 4.) The CDC may also opt to remand a petition to the ZBA “for reconsideration of its vote where significant new information has been made available.” (Id. at 13.) On October 20, 2009 meeting, the CDC considered the ZBA’s recommendation to deny the ILC Application. (Oct. 20, 2009 CDC Meeting Minutes [86-20], Ex. TT to Pl.’s Mot., at 4.) Member Zediker moved to amend ILC’s Application adding twelve conditions: 1. Restrict hours of use to 10:30 P.M. for all events/activities; 2. Allow one live-in caretaker; 3. Allow short-term occupancy by visiting scholar/clergy for not longer than two consecutive weeks (with family); 4. Exterior lighting not to exceed County standards at all lot lines; 5. No éxterior sound amplification; 6. Landscaping depicted on Ex. 3 [to ILC application] to be maintained and full evergreen vegetation screening along west property line to be added; 7. Restrict occupancy to the lesser of 100 people or the number allowed based on building occupancy of principal structure; 8. Restrict worship services and other special events to principal structure and require education classes to be conducted within principal structure; 9. Restrict parking spaces to twenty-seven; 10. Compliance with all other County Codes and ordinances; 11. Make relief limited to operation of subject site by Irshad Learning Center; and 12. An amended site plan and landscape plan reflecting these shall be required to obtain any permit for the subject property. (Id. at 4-5.) The members of the CDC present voted unanimously to approve the amended conditions. (Id.) At some point after the. October CDC meeting, CDC Chairman Michelassi and Board members Healy and Zediker held an informal meeting with Objectors to develop conditions which could be imposed that might satisfy the Objectors’ concerns. (Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 80.) Based on these discussions, Healy conveyed additional proposed conditions to ILC’s attorney. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 63; PL’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 80.) On November 5, 2009, CDC Chairman Michelassi convened a second informal meeting, which included Zediker, members of the County staff, representatives of ILC, ILC’s attorney, and Objectors. (Pl.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 63; PL’s 56.1 Resp-¶ 80; Michelassi Dep. [85-4], Ex. 0 to PL’s Mot., at 55:16-58:20.) The purpose of this meeting was to conduct an informal review of ILC’s site plan, identify the remaining objections, and draw up a set of additional conditions to be presented at the following County Board meeting. (Michelassi Dep. at 55:16-58:20.) No record of what transpired at- this meeting has been submitted, but it appears that it resulted in a proposal to impose the following requirements for approval of ILC’s Application and revision to the site plan for the property: • reconfiguring the. parking lot to include thirty-nine parking spaces in front of the main structure; • installation of minimum 30-inch berming around the west and east portion of the parking and circulation areas; • planting of trees on top of the berming to be at least six feet tall; ' • no occupancy or use of the building until all of the improvements are completed; • limits on hours of operation for worship services and education services to between 6:00 a.m. and 10:30 p.m.; and • commitment to extinguish all parking lot lighting by 10:45 p.m. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 63.) ILC developed an alternative site plan in accordance with these changes, which was submitted to County zoning staff on November 9, 2009. (Id. ¶ 64.) On November 10, 2009, the County Board considered ILC’s Amended Application. (Id. ¶ 65.) During this meeting, Objectors again spoke in opposition to ILC’s Application, raising issues which CDC Chairman Michelassi believed had been addressed and resolved at the November 5, 2009 informal meeting. (Id.) Chairman Michelassi moved to amend the Ordinance by adding the additional conditions, but no vote was taken. Instead, the County Board voted to remand the Application with the proposed amendments to the ZBA for yet another review. (Id. ¶ 66.) On November 12, 2009, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York sought asset forfeiture against the Alavi Foundation, a New York-based not-for-profit “devoted to the promotion and support of Islamic culture and Persian language,” because of its alleged association with the Iranian government. The Alavi Foundation had provided partial financing to Plaintiff to assist its purchase of the property. (PL’s Compl. [1] ¶ 116.) On November 14, 2009, one of the neighbors to Plaintiffs property sent an e-mail to the County Board informing the members that the Alavi Foundation’s assets had been seized and that ILC had received funds from the Alavi Foundation. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 69.) At some point after learning of the connection between ILC and the Alavi Foundation, Member Zediker reportedly told the Naperville Sun that he wanted to make sure there were no Homeland Security regulations that could affect the ILC proposai (Zediker Dep. [85-9], Ex. T to 'Pl.’s Mot., at 64-65); when deposed, however, Zedike had no recollection of actually taking any action in that regard. (Id.) All the County Board members later testified that they believed the Alavi Foundation issue had no bearing on the ILC Application. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 69.) Prior to the ZBA’s December 7, 2009 hearing, County Board Chairman Schillerstrom directed CDC Chairman Michelassi to write a letter advising the ZBA of the second set of proposed conditions. (Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 90.) For reasons unexplained in the record before the court, Michelassi failed to do so. (Id.) As a result, the more detailed conditions presented at the November 10, 2009 County Board meeting were not presented to the ZBA, and instead the ZBA was presented only with the twelve conditions previously recommended by the CDC on October 20, 2009. (Pl.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 70; Pl.’s 56.1 Resp. ¶ 90.) At the December 7, 2009 hearing, ZBA Chairman Kartholl observed that the ZBA had completed its deliberations on ILC’s Application weeks earlier but had been asked to conduct a special public hearing to present to you, neighbors particularly, the conditions that were proposed for consideration by the County Board in order to determine whether you understand the conditions and whether, if those conditions were implemented as part of an approval process for this petition, whether the conditions would then alleviate the concerns of the public. (Dec. 7, 2009 ZBA Hr’g Tr. [87-1], Ex. AAA to Pl.’s Mot.) Neighbors again spoke out against the Application, raising issues regarding noise and light pollution, storm-water, and parking. (Id.) One of the neighbors expressed concern that the Ala-vi Foundation was the mortgage holder of the Plaintiffs property. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 71.) Chairman Kartholl replied that the Board had “avoided considerations of those concerns because they are not ... straight forward zoning issues.” (Dec. 7, .2009 ZBA Hr’g Tr. at 17.) ILC’s zoning attorney also spoke, reiterating ILC’s willingness to comply with all applicable codes. (Id. at 30-34.),, He stated that ILC would accept all the conditions except the maximum twenty-seven parking spaces; attorney Day noted that number is near the minimum required by the Code, not the maximum permitted. (Id. at 31-33.) Once again the ZBA voted unanimously to deny the ILC Application. (PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 72.) The ZBA also adopted the June 4, 2009 and September 10, 2009 findings as part of its December 7, 2009 recommendation and noted that the proposed conditions did not ameliorate the previous findings. (Id.) December 15, 2009 CDC Meeting As the ZBA had again recommended denial of the application, the CDC could either make a recommendation to the County Board, or again remand a petition to the ZBA. Zoning Procedures at 4, 13. On December 15, 2009, the CDC held a meeting to consider the Application. The day before thé meeting, a resident of Naperville e-mailed all of the County Board members' urging the Board not to approve ILC’s Application without “complete and absolute clearance from our local FBI and Homeland Security.” (Id. ¶¶ 75.) At the December 15, 2009 CDC meeting, after hearing from both Objectors and petitioners, Member Michelassi moved to amend the original twelve conditions with the additional conditions presented on November 10, 2009. Member Enger seconded the motion, but the motion failed. (Id. ¶ 73.) After the amended conditions failed, Member Michelassi moved to approve the ILC Application with the twelve CDC conditions presented on October 20, 2009. (Id. ¶ 74.) The motion passed by a vote of three to one. (Dec. 15, 2009 CDC Meeting Minutes [87-4], Ex. DDD to Pl.’s Mot., at 5.) Members Enger, Gonzalez, and Michelassi voted “Aye,” while Member Olson voted “Nay.” (Id.) Members Redick and Zediker abstained from voting because they felt the recommendation was the same as the one presented at the October 2009 meeting, and they had already voted on that matter. (Id.) County Board’s Denial Having been approved by the CDC, the Application went on to the County Board for a final vote. (Zoning Procedures at 4.) The DuPage County Board scheduled a final vote on the Application for January 12, 2010. Prior to that meeting, on January 8, 2010, a representative of ACT! For America e-mailed the County Board members alleging that ILC was lying to the Board and that ILC was in fact synonymous with the Alavi Foundation, had connections to terrorist organizations, and intended to use the property to .spread radical-jihadist Islamic ideology. (Pl.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 76.) Also on January 8, 2010', Board Member Jim Zay e-mailed an objecting neighbor stating: “I have been fighting this same battle in my district for years with these kinds of uses coming into residential neighborhoods. I have tried to change the zoning for religious institutions, social clubs, etc. but it was voted down by the board. You have a right when you buy your property to assume it will continue to be a residential area, not have these kinds of uses.” (Id. ¶ 77.) On January 12, 2010, the County Board held its last meeting on the ILC petition. A representative of ACT! For America spoke in opposition to ILC’s Application, again asserting that ILC was in fact the Alavi Foundation and was “actively involved in deception.” (Id. ¶ 78.) Board Members Bennington, Michelassi, and Zediker later testified that they believed these comments were “not appropriate” and “not pertinent to the conditional use.” (Id.) Member Bennington found such comments to be “over the top.” (Id.) Prior to voting, some Board members commented on ILC’s Ordinance. Member Zay expressed his opposition, referring to the dispute as one about “people’s rights not religious rights,” and observing that “this type of effort” does not belong in residential areas. (Jan. 12, 2010 CDC Meeting Minutes [87-6], Ex. FFF to Pl.’s Mot., at 1.) Member Puehalski stated that the petitioner had never testified at a hearing and the ZBA had voted the petition down three times. (Id.) Puehalski believed that the proposed use was too intense and the planned changes were insufficient. (Id.) Member Eckhoff noted that the petition restricts use after 10:30 p.m., but did not identify a specific starting time; he moved to amend the Ordinance to limit activities beginning earlier than 7:00 a.m. and restrict the number of vehicles parked on the property to twenty-seven. (Id.) This motion carried. Member Michelassi stated that he believed that overcrowding had been addressed with the passage of Eckhoff s amendment and that the Committee had done everything it could to protect the neighborhood. (Id.) Michelassi moved to approve the ILC Ordinance, and Member Healy seconded the motion. (Id.) The County Board voted 10-7 against the Application. (Pl.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 81.) Members Enger and Gonzalez, who had previously voted for the Application in CDC meetings, now voted against it. (Id. ¶ 79.) Member Enger later testified that he visited ILC’s property three times, once early in the ZBA hearings and twice during the CDC process. He acknowledges having voted in favor of the ILC petition with the twelve conditions at the CDC meeting on December 15, 2009, and could not recall why he voted against ILC’s petition in January. (Id. ¶ 83.) Member Gonzalez testified that she intended to vote in favor of ILC’s Application until she spoke with Member Enger just before the January 12, 2010 meeting. (Id. ¶ 82.) . Gonzalez stated that Enger told her he had just visited ILC’s property a day or two earlier and had noticed a large issue with the lighting affecting the neighbors. (Id.) County Board member Olson, like Enger, could not recall any specific reasons for their respective votes on the Application. (Id. ¶ 85.) Olson recalled only that she believed ILC’s proposed use was “not appropriate” for the property. (Id.) Ordinance Z08-074A (hereinafter “Ir-shad Ordinance”) included the ZBA’s findings from June 4, September 10, and December 7, 2008. The Ordinance does not include any additional or independent findings by the County Board or CDC. (See Irshad Ordinance [31-3], Ex. A to Defs.’ Mot. To Dismiss; PL’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 88.) Plaintiffs Claims ILC brought an eleven-count complaint against the County of DuPage and individual members of the ZBA and County Board. All counts were dismissed against the individual Board members, and nine counts have survived against the County. (See Mar. 28, 2011 Mem. Op. and Order, 804 F.Supp.2d 697 (N.D.I11.2011).) Count I alleges that the County violated the equal-terms and nondiscrimination provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc(2)(b)(l)-(2). (PL’s Compl. ¶¶ 147-152.) Count II alleges that the County violated the substantial burden provision of RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(2)(a). (Id. ¶¶ 153-59.) Count III, brought pursuant, to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleges that the County and the individual Defendants violated the Plaintiffs right to the free exercise of religion in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Id. ¶¶ 160-63.) Count V alleges that the County violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. ¶¶ 171-76.) Count VII seeks de novo legislative review of the County Board’s decision. (Id. ¶¶ 188-190.) Count VIII seeks injunctive relief against the County to mandate compliance with its zoning standards and approval of the Application. (Id. ¶¶ 191— 94.) Count IX alleges that the County violated the substantial burden prohibition in the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 775 ILCS 35/15. (Id. ¶¶ 195-202.) Count X alleges, that the County violated the Free Exercise Clause of the Illinois Constitution, Article I, Section 3. (Id. ¶¶ 203-05.) The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on Counts II, III, VII, IX, and X. Defendant has moved for summary judgment on all of ILC’s claims. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review The court will grant summary judgment if, construing all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the moving party demonstrates that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). If the moving party adduces sufficient evidence to show it is entitled to summary judgment, the non-moving party must “affirmatively