Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin /". .- '\ \ I ety's exercise of religion in violation of RLUIPA or S 52-571b. The coUrt found that the denial was within the town's discretion'because the Society had failed to obtain approval of its septic and water sup- ply systems, as required by the town's zoning regulations. The Society appealed. The case was transferred from the appellate court to the state's Supreme Court. DECISION: Affirmed. The court concluded that RLUIPA did not apply to the Society's claim because it did not apply to land use regulations that were neu- tral and generally applied. The court found that the substantial bur- den provision of RLUIPA applied only to cases in which the gov- ernment made, or had practices that allowed it to make, individual- ized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved. A zoning regulation that was applicable without discrimination to all property owners in a jurisdiction and was intended to protect the public health and safety was not an "individualized assessment," the court said. Although the town did have some discretion to determine whether a proposed specially permitted use was consistent with the residential zoning requirements, the court found ~h,e zoning regula- tions did not allow the town discretion to apply the standards differ- ) ently to religious facilities than it applied them to other uses allowed . by special exception, such as clubs, private schools, and hospitals. Therefore, because the town's zoning regulations did not allow for an "individualized assessment," the substantial burden provision of RLUIPA did not apply to the Society's claim. The court also concluded that the town did not apply the zon- ing regulations in a discriminatory manner in violation of RLUIPA. The court found that the town's zoning regulations, which allowed religious facilities to be built in a residential zone by special excep- tion treated such uses more, not less, favorably than certain other nonresidential uses that were not allowed by special exception. The court was also satisfied that the town's reasons for denial were not motivated by religious bigotry but by neutral consideration that it would apply equally to any proposed use of property. The court also found that Connecticut law S 52-571b similarly did not apply to the Society's claim. The Society argued that the state law was broader than RLUIPA because the state law prohibited gov- ernmental conduct that burdened the exercise of religion, while RL- UIPA prohibited governmental conduct that substantially burdened the exercise of religion. The court rejected this argument. The court noted that, unlike RLUIPA, S 52-571b did not expressly define re- ligious exercise to include the use of real property. The court also 4 140