Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009

Home

September 10, 2009 I Volume 3 I No. 17 Zoning Bulletin of religious sentiment, belief, and worship." (Wash. Const. art I, S 11.) The court also explained that in order to be successful on its claim, the Church had to show: (1) that its belief was "sincere;" and (2) that the city's moratorium "substantially" burdened the Church's exercise of re- ligion. If those burdens were met, the city would only prevail if it could show that it had a "narrow means for achieving a compelling goal." The city conceded the Church's sincerity of belief. The court said the city's moratorium would burden the Church's ex- ercise of religion if it had a "coercive effect" that operated against the Church in its religious practice. Not every "slight burden" would be found invalid, emphasized the court. If that was the case, church actions would be completely free from government regulation. Instead, for a burden to be unconstitutional, it must be more "substantial." Here, the court found that the city's "total refusal to process [the Church's] per- mit application [was] such a [substantial] burden." The court said this was because the city's moratorium: (1) "prevented the Church from even applying fora permit;" (2) "gave the Church no alternatives;" and (3) lasted a full year, The court further found that that the citylfailed to show that the mor- atorium was a "narrow means for achieving a compelling goal." while the city could base a permitting decision on "concerns for safety, noise, and crime," it could not "outright deny consideration of permitting." See also: Open Door Baptist Church v. Clark County, 140 Wash.2d 143, 995 P.2d 33 (2000). See also: Munns v. Martin, 131 Wash. 2d 192,930 P.2d 318 (1997). Case Note: hi reaching its conclusion, the court noted that Wash- ington's constitution provided the Church with more protection for religious freedom than did the First Amendment of the United ~tates Constitution. Since the court held for the Church on state constitu- tional grounds, it did not decide whether there was a violation of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). Case Note: The court's decision also evaluated whether the Church had breached a contract it had with the city. Under the contract, which had been entered into years prior, the Church had promised to obtain a valid permit before. hosting Tent City. The court held that the Church was excused from its contractual duty when the city refused to process the permit application. 12 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 70 /) () , ,. (~