Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2008

Home

88 Mimy communities now consider scale and impacts when classifying religious institutions. These distinctions are most significant in commu- nities in which a megachurch has located or for institutions that attract congregants from several communities. For example,. last April in North Carolina, Charlotte's city council adopted a zoning text amendment that contains the following classifications: . small religious institutions-includes institutions with up to 400 seats in the largest assembly space . medium religious institutions-includes institutions with 401 to 750 seats . large religious institutions-includes institutions with 751 to 1,200 .seats In Charlotte, small and medium religious institutions can locate on . smaller collector streets (versus minor or major thoroughfares) provided such religious institutions do not exceed a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.25. Small and medium religious institutions with an FAR in excess of 0.25 but not exceeding 0.5 must be located on a minor or major.thoroughfare. Large religious institutions may have FARs in excess of 0.5 but all such institutions must be located on major thoroughfares and are limited to higher density residential districts and mixed use zoning classifications. Additionally, all religious institutions must meet the following standards: . . They must provide at least 25 percent on-site open space. . They must provide landscape screening especially from adjoining residential properties. . Offices within these institutions must be limited to 25 percent or less of the total floor area of buildings on the lot. . The site plan must show that accessory structures and buildings are contiguous to the principle structures. In Texas, El Paso's Development Services Department has prepared a draft ordinance that uses a similar classification system for assembly uses: . neighborhood facilities-public assembly uses Qncluding religious institutions) designed for and serving the residents of a neighbor- hood, which is defined as an area of one square mile . community fucilities-public assembly uses designed for and which . serve the residents of several neighborhood areas, where such neighborhoods are in the same approximate geographic area (defined as an area of four square miles) . regional facilities-public assembly uses designed for and serving the residents of the entire city, nearby communities, and unincorpo- rated areas For all three facility types the maximum square footage of any build- ing is limited to one-fifth of the total land area of the lot. Neighborhood facilities can locate on any public street. However, they must have lot areas between one andfive acres. In contrast, community facilities must locate on arterial streets. In addition, they must have lot sizes between five and 15 acres. Following this pattern, regional facilities must have a minimum lot size of 15 acres. . the growth of accessory or auxiliary functions within reli- gious institutions (e.g., school, day care, adult education, and homeless services) . the willingness of religious institutions to locate in nontradi- tional and converted buildings .. suburbanization, "greenfield" churches, and the concept of a religious institution as a destination site . the intensive. use of religious facilities on more than just one day a week Even without RLUIPA, all of these changes were forcing planners to reconsider the appropriate manner in which tll reg- ulate religious land uses. For example, in 1988, suburban Northbrook, Illinois, changed its zoning code to allow religious institutions only in the IB Onstituti()nal Building) zoning district. This change required religious institutions to obtain a rezoning to the IB district and approval as a special use (both legislative acts) wherever they wished to locate. Because each potential . religious institution presented its own set of issues, the village thought it best to review every application on a case-by-case basis. This classification scheme was later challenged as violat- ing RLUIPA and, as discussed below, was subsequently amended in 2003. Planners should note, however, that despite the fact that religious institutions could not locate as of right in any particular district, every religious institution that applied for a rezoning and special use approval in the 1988 to 2003 time period obtained approval through a process of negotia- tion and compromise. Other communities responded to these changes in a similar manner by, for example. opening their business and commer- cial districts to religious institutions, sometimes treating them as special or conditional uses and subjecting them to the same type of detailed site plan and traffic analysis more typically associated with commercial development. SOUND PLANNING AND RLUlPA RLUIPA has two main provisions, each of which imposes new constraints on planners. The Equal Terms provision provides that a municipality may not treat "a religious assembly or insti- tution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution" (4:2 u.s.c. 9200~CC(b) (1)). This provision is based upon the idea that gatherings (I.e., assembly) for reli- gious worship should, for zoning purposes, be treated no dif- ferently than gatherings for the purpose of discussing or cele- brating secular issues. The assembly uses most obviously comparable to religious institutions are private clubs and lodges, country clubs, union halls, and private assembly halls. Planners might better describe these as privately owned buildings where members regularly meet, socialize, or discuss civic issues. For example, one court said that if a city's zoning code allows a Cub Scout troop to hold a weekly meeting in someone's house, the neigh- bor next door should be allowed to host similarly sized meet- ings for the purpose of religious worship or Bible study (Konikov v. Orange County, Florida, 410 F.3d 1317 (11th Gr. . 2005)). Likewise, if a nonreligious assembly use, such as an Elks Lodge, is allowed to locate in a particular zoning district ZONING PRACTICE 9.08 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 1 page"