Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2008

Home

/----\ il ) /.--~.. II \ -\ ! ( March 25, 20081 Volume 21 No.6 The town denied the special exception because the proposed use would violate the zoning regulations. Specifically, the town 'denied it because: (1) it would create additional traffic congestion and haz- ards; (2) it was not in harmony with the general character of the neighborhood; (3) evidence indicated the Society intended to use the property as a "tele-medicine treatment site", which was not permit- ted in a residential zone; (4) it would substantially impair property values in the neighborhood; and (5) it would create a health or safe- ty hazard to persons or property off the lot since the society had not established that the proposed subsurface wastewater system or pri- vate water system would meet the public health code. The town's de- nial was also based on the town's conclusion that the temple design violated the zoning regulations because it was not in harmony with' the design of other buildings in the vicinity. The Society appealed the town's decision to the superior court. The Society argued that the town's refusal to grant the special excep- tion to build the temple was arbitrary, illegal and an abuse of dis- cretion because: (1) the reasons for the denial were not supported by substantial evidence in the record; and (2) it was discriminatory because it substantially burdened the Society's exercise of religion, which was in violation of (a) the federal Religious Lan~ Use and In- stitutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (42 U.S.c. ~ 2000cc et seq.) (RL- UlPA) and (b) state law, Conn. Gen. Stat. ~ 52-571b. RLUIPA prohibited government from imposing a land use regula- tion ina way that resulted in a significant burden on the religious . exercise of a religious institution. The government was excepted from that prohibition if it could demonstrate that the burden on re- ligious exercise was: (1) in furtherance of a compelling goverrimen- tal interest; and (2) was the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest. Connecticut law ~ 52-571b similarly prohibited government from burdening a person's exercise of religion unless the government demonstrated that the burden met those govern- mental interest exceptions. In response to the Society's allegations, the town said that its de- nial was supported by substantial evidence. The town also argued that its denial did not substantially burden the Society's exercise of religion in violation of RLUIPA or the state law because: (1) the So- ciety had not established that it was not unable to construct a tem~ pIe at another location within the town; and (2) the town applied the same standards to the Society's application that it would to any applicant for a special exception. The superior court found for the town. The court found that the denial of the special exception did not, substantially burden the Soci- 3 139