Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(j <br /> <br />'--,.-; <br /> <br />() <br /> <br />( ) <br />.----,/ <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />September 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 17 <br /> <br />not show any contrary evidence, any remand would only "delay an <br />inevitable result." <br /> <br />Validity of Zoning Regulations-City refuses to <br />process church's permit application based on <br />permit moratorium <br /> <br />Church contends moratorium violates its constitutional right <br />to religious freedom <br /> <br />Citation: City of Woodinville v. Northshore United Church of Christ, <br />211 P.3d 406 (Wash. 2009) . <br /> <br />WASHINGTON (07/16/09)-The Northshore United Church of <br />Christ (the "Church") owned property (the "Property") around its <br />church buildings in the R-l residential area of the city. In 2006, the <br />Church agreed to allow a temporary encamp~ent of homeless people- <br />"T~nt City 4"-to move onto its Property for 90 days. The Church ap- <br />plied for a related temporary use permit from the city. The city declined <br />to process the Church's permit application. This was because, several <br />months prior to the Church's application, the city had passed a six- <br />month moratorium on all land use permit applications in the R-l zone. <br />The moratorium, which was extended for an additional six months, had <br />been passed pending completion of a study on environmental effects of <br />new development. <br />Despite the city's refusal to process the Church's permit application, <br />the Church "moved forward to host" Tent City 4 on its Property. <br />The city sought a court ordered permanent injunction, blocking the <br />Church from hosting Tent City 4 without obtaining the necessary per- <br />mits. In response, the Church counterclaimed that the city's refusal to <br />process its permit application violated its state constitutional right to re- <br />ligious freedom. <br />The trial court ruled in favor of the city. <br />The church appealed, and the court of appeals also found for the city. <br />The church again appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br /> <br />The Supreme Court of Washington concluded that the city's morato- <br />rium on all land use permit applications placed a "substantial burden" <br />on the Church's religious "sentiment, beliefIor] worship," in violation of <br />its constitutional right to religious freedom. <br /> <br />In reaching its conclusion, the court first noted that Washington's con- <br />stitution guaranteed, "[a ]bsolute freedom of conscience in all matters <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />69 <br />