02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

December 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No. 24 Zoning Bulletin face of the language of the law); or (2) by lacking neutrality in that its object is to suppress religious practice. "Land use regulations," said the court, - "generally include or exclude a number of entities. And the fact that a church is one of them does not render the law facially discrimina- tory. Furthermore, that a zoning ordinance permits a non-religious assem- bly but excludes a religious assembly does not indicate that its object was to target religious practice." Rather, foilnd the court, "[t]here are a num- ber of legitimate secular reasons for permitting some assemblies while excluding others ...." Thus, the court said that the proper "framework" for determining whether a local zoning ordinance violates RLUIPA is to compare "the effect of the included and excluded assemblies on the local government's stated goals." Here, the court found that even if some of the uses permitted in the . District (i.e., commercial gyms or health clubs, salons,. day care centers, and hotels) were "assemblies," "[t]heir effect on the [v]illage's goals [were] sufficiently distinguishable to remove any suspicion of [districting to hin~ der religious activities]." The village had sought to create "a tax revenue~ generating commercial district." The permitted uses were all "commercial in nature." Excluded uses, including churches, ~ommunity centers, and schools were not commercial. The village, said the court, in seeking to cre- ate a commercial area "should be able to exclude noncommercial uses that do not contribute to its goal without violating RLUIP A." See also: Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism, Inc; v. City of Long Branch, 510 R3d 253 (3d Cir. 20Q7), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 2503, 171 L. Ed. 2d 787 (2008). See also: Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 R3d 1214 (11th Cir.2004). 'Case Note: The court did not actually decide the case on its merits. Its opinion simply affirmed the denial of the Church's request for a preliminary injunction. This conclusion was based on the courts findingrhatthe Church "was unlikely to succeed on the merits," as explained in the legal. discussion noted above. Standing-Environmental organization challenges rezoning of area near butterfly preserve . City contends organization lacks standing because none of its members live near rezoned area Citation: Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Common Council of City of Al- bany, 2009 WL 3425317 (N. Y. 2009) NEW YORK (10/27/09)-Tharaldson Development Company owned a 3.6 acre parcel of land in the city. In September 2003, Tharaldson 4 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters -~.;.,;- - 78 (-... ) (-~!: \, I' (, ) i I I I f' \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! l I 1 ! - I ! I i I I I I I ! i I I I I \.