Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): unable to determine which, if any, conditions might mitigate adverse effects on adjoining properties. (Def.’s Mem. at 2.) This inability resulted from “uncertainty” regarding ILC’s proposed use, the County asserts (Def.’s Resp. at 13), again criticizing ILC’s reliance on testimony of counsel rather than ILC’s directors. (Def.’s Resp. at 5, 7.) Again, any purported uncertainty regarding ILC’s proposed use and how it could conduct its activities within the conditions placed on its proposed use appears to rest on an unsupported assumption that ILC would exceed its proposed use. ILC alleges that the “delay, uncertainty, and expense” that have accompanied its efforts to gain approval of its Conditional Use Application impose a substantial burden. Sts. Constantine and Helen, 396 F.3d at 901 (<HOLDING>). Importantly, the Seventh Circuit has noted 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing same factors (B) recognizing burden (C) holding that a citys requirement that the plaintiff refile a complete permit application did not constitute a substantial burden (D) holding that the burden is on the plaintiff (E) holding that such factors may constitute a substantial burden
Output (English): holding that a citys requirement that the plaintiff refile a complete permit application did not constitute a substantial burden