Laserfiche WebLink
February 25, 2010 I Volume 4 I No. 4 Zoning Bulletin <br />guage of the IRFRA, the City's decision did "not constitute a violation <br />of" the IRFRA. The IRFRA provides that "[g]overnment may not sub- <br />stantially burden a person's exercise of religion." The court had found <br />that § 5.14-2(e) did not impose a "substantial burden" on churches <br />or their members. Rathei it had concluded that § 5.14-2(e) imposed a <br />reasonable limitation on a benefit the City conferred on churches. The <br />IRFRA further provided that "[g]ranting government funding, benefits, <br />or exemptions ... does not constitute a violation of [the IRFRA]." The <br />court had found the overall effect of § 5.14-2(e) was to confer a ben- <br />efit on churches that meet the specified requirements, exempting them <br />from the special use permit application process. <br />Zoning News from Around the Nation <br />ARIZONA <br />Proposed state legislation would reportedly treat churches like commer- <br />cial establishments, prohibiting "cities from using zoning codes or land <br />use restrictions to restrict where churches can be located." <br />Source: Yuma Sun; www.yumasun.com <br />CALIFORNIA <br />San Jose is reportedly contemplating pursuing an ordinance that per- <br />mits and taxes medical pot dispensaries <br />Source: San Jose Mercury News; www.mercurynews.com <br />CONNECTICUT <br />A three -judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled <br />that "descriptive language in ordinances, and not just mathematical <br />percentages, can be used to determine when a business can be classi- <br />fied as `adult -oriented."' This ruling resulted from the challenge by the <br />chain store, Very Intimate Pleasures ("VIP"), of a town of Berlin ordi- <br />nance. The ordinance defined an "adult -oriented store" as any estab- <br />lishment having " 'a substantial or significant portion' of its stock in <br />trade in adult books, videos or novelties." VIP argued the ordinance <br />was unconstitutional because the language was "not exact enough to <br />prevent it from being applied arbitrarily." The court disagreed. <br />Source: The Connecticut Law Tribune; www.law.com <br />MAINE <br />In light of a "still -evolving state law allowing marijuana dispensaries," <br />which allows towns to pass "reasonable rules to govern dispensaries," <br />10 ® 2010 Thomson Reuters <br />70 <br />