My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2011
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2011
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:06:52 AM
Creation date
4/1/2011 2:22:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
04/07/2011
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
264
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. <br />City of Woodinville v <br />Northshore United <br />Church of Christ, 162 <br />P 3d 639 (Wash. Ct. <br />App. 2007) ; McGann <br />v Inc. Vill. Of Old <br />Westbury, 719 <br />N.Y.S.2d 803 (N.Y. <br />Sup. 2000). <br />Cities cannot enact, amend, or enforce a zoning ordinance that has the effect <br />of altering the existing density, lot -size requirements, or manufactured home <br />set back requirements in any manufactured home park constructed before <br />January 1, 1995, if the manufactured home park, when constructed, complied <br />with the then existing density, lot -size and setback requirements, if any. <br />3. Federal law considerations: The Religious <br />Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act <br />The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of <br />2000 provides that no government entity shall impose or implement a land <br />use regulation in a manner that puts a substantial burden on the religious <br />exercise of a person, religious assembly or religious institution, unless the <br />government can show the burden is in furtherance of a compelling <br />government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that <br />interest. This means that if a religious use may be, in some circumstances, <br />exempted from city zoning requirements if the regulation substantially <br />burdens the religious organization or person's exercise of religion. <br />RLUIPA also provides that no government may impose or implement a land <br />use regulation in a manner that: <br />• Treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a <br />nonreligious assembly or institution. For example, a zoning ordinance <br />that allows community centers and fraternal organization centers in a <br />particular district, but not a religious center (such as a church, mosque or <br />synagogue), whose use would be strikingly similar to the other allowed <br />uses. <br />• Discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion <br />or religious denomination. <br />• Totally excludes religious assemblies from their jurisdiction or <br />unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures <br />within a jurisdiction. <br />Activities beyond worship services for religious institutions may potentially <br />be protected by the RLUIPA, including schools and childcare. However, this <br />is an unsettled area of the current law. <br />ZONING GUIDE FOR CITIES 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.