02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ii i: i, 'I II Ii I I i i (~~ J I I I 1 I i I I I I i I I I l I I I i i ! I I j l ! I i J j () t~ Zoning Bulletin. December 25, 2009 I Volume 31 No. 24 talize the "run-down area". of the District. Pursuant to the village's Ordi- nance, the following uses were permitted in the District: "general com- mercial and retail uses, gas stations, hotels, taverns, offices, and meeting halls." Under an amendment to the Ordinance, the following uses were specifically prohibited in the District: religious services, "community cen- ters, non-religious schools, meeting halls, art galleries, and recreational buildings, among other uses." When it purchased the Property, the Church wa.s aware that the Ordi- nance prohibited religious services in the District. However; the Church hoped it would receive a special permit, allowing it. such a use. Appar- ently, in so hoping, the Church had relied on an out-dated version of the Ordinance. The Ordinance no longer allowed for a special use permit for such a use. Accordingly, the village denied the Church's application for special permission to use the Property for religious. services. It also denied the Church's application for a special use exception. The Church eventually filed a legal action in court. Among other thing~, it argued that the Ordinance violated the Equal Terms provi- sion of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). The Equal Terms provision'states: "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that treatS a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a non- religious assembly or institution." (42 US.C.A. ~ 2000cc(b)(1)). The Church claimed that the Ordinance violated the Equal Terms' provi- sion because' it allowed "non-religious assemblies to be located within [the District,]" while banillng religious assemblies. For example, the Church noted that assemblies such as "gymnasiums, health clubs, sa- lons, day care centers, and hotels" were aU permitted in the District. The Church argued that the Ordinance therefore treated "religious assemblies on less than equal terms with non-religious ones, thus violating RLUlPA." The village maintained that the permitted uses-including hotels, com- mercial gyms, and health clubs-were not "assemblies." Furthermore, it argued that even if they were considered to be "assemblies," the Ordi- nance was not discriminatory in violation of RLUlPA. The Church asked the district court to issue it a preliminary injunc- tion, allowing it to relocate to the property while the RLUlPA action was pending. The district court denied the motion. The Church appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed the denial of the Church's requested preliminary injunction. In doing so, it held.that "an ordinance that permits some non-religious assemblies but excludes religious assemblies can [not] be considered, without more, discriminatory or non-neutral." In so holding, the court explained that there were two ways in which a law could discriminate against religious conduct: (1) facially (i.e., on the @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 3 77