Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2008

Home

.p"'"", ) .i March 25, 2008/ Volume 21 No.6 found that there was no evidence that the state legislature intended that the construction of a place of worship would be religious exer- cise. The court found that, in the absence of discrimination against a particular religious use, land use regulations intended to protect pub- lichealth and safety were not subject to a strict scrutiny review un- der S 52-571b. Accordingly, S 52-571b did not provide broader pro- tection than RLUIPA, and thus did not apply to the Society's claim for the same reasons the court found RLUIPA did not apply. The court also found that the town's denial of the Society's special exception application to build the temple in the residential zone was supported by substantial evidence. However, the court found that only three of the town's conclusions were supported by evidence. The town's conclusion that the temple's design was not in har- mony with the design of other buildings in the vicinity was not a valid reason for denial, the court found. Strict enforcement of ar- chitectural harmony restrictions would prevent any nontraditional non-Judeo/Christian religion from building its temple in the town, the court said. The court found that although the temple design was not typical of buildings found in a rural New England setting, the proposed temple was generally attractive, relatively modest and not entirely out of character for a place of religious worship in such a neighborhood. Substantial evidence in the record did not support the town's con- clusion that the proposed use would create additional traffic con- gestion and hazards, the court found. The court noted that special exceptions by their nature generate different and more intense traf- fic than residences. Accordingly, a special exception application can only be denied if it would have a significantly greater impact on traf- fic congestion in the area than uses permitted as of right. The court found that the town, in reaching its conclusion, wrongly determined that a traffic erigineer did not rely on a traffic survey at the site. The court also found that the town failed to determine that the increase of traffic congestion on festival days at the temple would be signifi- cantly more than a permitted use of the property would produce. The town's conclusion that the Society's intention to use the prop- erty as a "tele-medicine treatment site" was inconsistent with the in- tent and purpose of the zoning regulations was not a valid ground for denial, the court found. If the proposed use as a temple otherwise complied with zoning regulations, the mere possibility that it would be used for an impermissible purpose was not a legitimate ground for denial, the court said. However, there was evidence to support the town's conclusion that the proposed use was not in harmony with the general character .5 141