|
munity has grown efficiently from the inside
<br />out, rather than with sprawling development
<br />gobbling up its productive farmlands. The
<br />county first adopted its comprehensive plan
<br />more than 3o years ago for the dual purpose
<br />of protecting open space and agricultural land
<br />while managing growth. The Boulder County
<br />Land Use Code was adopted to implement
<br />the comprehensive plan. All uses, including
<br />churches, in the agricultural district require re-
<br />view if the intensity of the proposed use rises
<br />above a certain threshold. The sole purpose of
<br />this special review is to determine the compat-
<br />ibility of the use with the site and surrounding
<br />land uses and the adequacy of services.
<br />Rocky Mountain Christian Church
<br />(RMCC) was established in 1984 in Boulder
<br />County's agricultural district, which pro-
<br />hibits offices, warehouses, and retail
<br />stores. RMCC's property is designated as
<br />"Agricultural Lands of National Significance"
<br />in the county comprehensive plan. Since
<br />7.994 the code requires a special use permit
<br />for occupancy loads exceeding too people.
<br />In t997 RMCC obtained a special use permit
<br />to make the use conforming and to build
<br />the next zo years or more, in anticipation of
<br />membership growing to 5,500. Boulder County
<br />officials partially denied the application as
<br />over intensive for the agricultural district. The
<br />church filed suit and argued the denialvio-
<br />lated both the Constitution and RLUIPA.
<br />In a decision that perplexed many
<br />observers, the jury concluded that county
<br />officials had not violated the Constitution,
<br />but had violated RLUIPA. In other words,
<br />county officials had complied with the First
<br />Amendment's equal protection require-
<br />ment, but the denial of RMCC's application
<br />violated RLUIPA's equal terms provision
<br />that forbids government from "im posting]
<br />or implement[ing] a land use regulation in
<br />a manner that treats a religious assembly
<br />or institution on less than equal terms with
<br />a nonreligious assembly or institution" (42
<br />U.S.C. § z000cc(b)(t)). The logical question
<br />is, does RLUIPA then require governments
<br />to give preferential treatment to religious
<br />land -use applicants? No damages were
<br />awarded, but the court ordered approval of
<br />RMCC's application. And, in Rocky Mountain
<br />Christian Church v. Board of County
<br />Commissioners of Boulder County, the loth
<br />$The loth Circuit Court decision in favor of the Rocky Mountain Christian
<br />Church seems inconsistent with substantial burden interpretations in many
<br />other RLUIPA cases.
<br />a 54,000-square-foot school. In zooz the
<br />county approved another application to add
<br />temporary modular units to accommodate
<br />izo additional students. The 55-acre com-
<br />plex now includes a io6,000-square-foot
<br />main building, a maintenance building, and
<br />7,zoo square feet of temporary modular
<br />units, used for a 38o-student K-8 school.
<br />In zoo4 RMCC filed a special use ap-
<br />plication to double the size of the building
<br />to almost 25o,000 square feet and provide
<br />more than 1,3oo parking spaces. The expan-
<br />sion was intended to serve RMCC's needs for
<br />Circuit affirmed. Boulder County will likely
<br />seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
<br />The American Planning Association
<br />and its Colorado Chapter filed an amicus
<br />brief in the loth Circuit to make the point
<br />that a "substantial burden" under RLUIPA
<br />is not shown by a failure to approve a larger
<br />church facility in an agricultural zone.
<br />Although RMCC's operations at its Niwot cam-
<br />pus were limited by the size of the existing
<br />facility, denial of the church's zoo4 application
<br />did not coerce its members to violate their
<br />religious beliefs or penalize them for religious
<br />conduct. RMCC and its members remained free
<br />to practice their religion without government
<br />interference in their existing facility, their new
<br />facility located approximately i5 miles away,
<br />and inn of the county's 13 zoning districts
<br />(Rosenthal and Morehead, nog).
<br />CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
<br />Planners and local government officials must
<br />be informed about, and sensitive to, RLUIPA
<br />issues and proactively plan for the needs
<br />of religious land uses in their communities,
<br />just as they do for other types of uses. The
<br />RLUIPA Reader —Religious Land Uses, Zoning,
<br />and the Courts is a good, practical resource.
<br />Vivian Kahn, in chapter zo, shares the top io
<br />tips for planners to remember:
<br />• Understand and appreciate RLUIPA's
<br />scope and purpose.
<br />• Plan for religious land use
<br />comprehensively.
<br />• Audit your comprehensive plan and land -
<br />use regulations.
<br />• Work with applicants early in the develop-
<br />ment review process.
<br />• Ensure that design regulations do not con-
<br />flict with religious values and traditions.
<br />• Incorporate strong findings in the record.
<br />• Treat every land -use applicant fairly.
<br />• Don't unduly burden religious practices.
<br />• Provide alternate means of relief.
<br />• Hold practice sessions.
<br />Cover image © iStockphoto.com/David
<br />Bukach; design concept by Lisa Barton.
<br />VOL. 27, NO. zo
<br />Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the
<br />American Planning Association. Subscriptions are
<br />available for $90 (U.S.) and $115 (foreign). W. Paul
<br />Farmer, racy, Chief Executive Officer; William R.
<br />Klein, AICP, Director of Research
<br />Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548-0135) is produced
<br />at APA. Jim Schwab, NCP, and David Morley, AICP,
<br />Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa
<br />Barton, Design and Production.
<br />Copyright ©zoto by American Planning
<br />Association, zo5 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200,
<br />Chicago, IL 6o6o1-5927. The American Planning
<br />Association also has offices at 103o 15th St., NW,
<br />Suite 75o West, Washington, DC z0005-15o3;
<br />www.planning.org.
<br />All rights reserved. No part of this publication
<br />may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by
<br />any means, electronic or mechanical, including
<br />photocopying, recording, or by any information
<br />storage and retrieval system, without permission in
<br />wrltingfrom the American PlanningAssociation.
<br />Printed on recycled paper, Including 5a-7o
<br />recycled fiber and ao % postconsumer waste.
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE so.ao
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipygp 77
<br />
|