Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/07/1995

Home

The citizens group sued the city, and asked the court to order the city to allow the referenda. The court granted the city judgment without a trial. The citizens group appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. The lower court incorrectly found the resolutions and ordinances were an individual property zoning decision that could not be changed by referenda. The appeals court returned the case to the lower court to decide whether the zoning changes at issue were administrative changes or legislative changes. Administrative changes were exempt from referenda, but legislative changes were not. If the city council's changes fell within the general purpose and policy of the original ordinance, they were administrative changes. If not, they were legislative and the referenda-could be allowed. Wilson v. Manning, 657 P2d 251 (1982). Bird v. Sorenson, 394 P..2d 808 (1964). Variance -- City Tries to Restrict Operation of Church Soup Kitchen Western Presbyterian Church v. Board of Zoning Adjustment of District of Columbia, 849 F. Supp. 77 (District Of Columbia) 1994 For more than 10 years, the Western Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., provided food to the homeless on church premises. The church planned to move to a new location and to continue feeding the poor and homeless there. The city's zoning administrator told the church it could not continue its program at the new location. The administrator said a city zoning regulation restricted homeless feeding programs in residential districts. The church's new location was in a "split" zone ~ both residential and special purpose. There- fore, the administrator found the restriction applied to the church. He told the church no special exceptions were available for its site, so it would have to get a permit or variance to feed the poor.. The Board of Zoning Adjustment upheld the administrator's decision, find- ing the church needed a variance because no special exceptions applied. The church claimed the zoning administrator's decisions 'violated: its reli- gious freedom under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Resto- ration Act of 1993; its due process and equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment; and the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. The church sued the board, and requested a court order blocking city zon- ing officials from stopping the church's efforts to feed the homeless at its new location until the case was decided. DECISION: Court order granted. The church was involved in a feeding program that was part of its religious beliefs. Stopping the program would interfere with the church's free e>/ercise of religion. For 10 years, the church had conducted an exemplary program without complaints. It responded to a great need to help the poor and needy. The feed- ing program could not be restricted and sent to a less desirable area of Wash- 102_ ....