Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/05/1995

Home

June 15, 1995 -- Page 5 because the county and state had "no jurisdiction over religion and no author- ity to requ{re a permit of this type." The county did not grant the waiver, and ~ . the church ~ent through every step of the remew process under protest. At a f%J1 hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, neighbor- hood residents opposed the school, complaining about noise and traffic con- gestion. T~e board found the school to be incompatible with nearby residential uses and tl{e county's comprehensive plan. The board also found the school failed to sl~ow how noise would be reduced or that the water supply could support the ~chool and provide fire protection. Therefore, it denied the application. The church expanded its sanctuary and classroom space. Zoning and build- ing official~, approved the construction. The county officials' approval included complianc~ with building code requirements for fire protection and safety, sani- tation, and ~health. The county then gave the church a certificate of occupancy which permitted 150 people in the sanctuary and 55 people in the classroom facilities. On Apr!l 8, 1991, the church opened the school for one day of classes. The county ord{red it to close the school or be prosecuted. The church closed the school and }ued the county for violating its First Amendment right to freedom of religion ~nd for applying its land use code in a manner that was beyond the county's au!~hority. The chttrch asked for judgment without a trial and for an order allowing it to operate the school. DECISION~ Judgment for the church. The county violated the church members' First Amendment rights by pro- hibiting their free exercise of religion. Despite the county's arguments, its denial of the appli!cation was not just a rejection of a request to use property as a private schdol in a residential neighborhood. Religiot~s education was an integral part of the church members' religious beliefs. Theicounty's action burdened this sincerely held religious belief with- out a good e:gough reason. The county did not explain its findings about noise, water supplT, and noncompliance with the comprehensive plan. In fact, it later gave the church a certificate of occupancy confirming compliance with all rele- vant codes. The board was influenced by neighborhood concerns, which was not a compelling government interest. Because the church could conduct reli- gious act~wges under the code, the demal of the permit was a restr~ctmn on religious cofiduct. Messiah.Balgtist Church v. CourtO, of Jefferso~, State of Colorado, 859 F, 2a 820 9 88). Sherbert:v. Verne~; 374 U.S. 398, 83 S. Ct. 1790, ]O L.Ed. 2d 965 (1963). Special permit ~ Advertiser Builds Sign Much Higher Than Ordinance Allows Scadron ~: Zoning Board of Appeals of the CiO' of Chicago, 637 N. E. gd 710 (llli~ois) 1994 Scadron }applied for a permit to build an advertising sign on the roof of a 4- story building in the north loop section of Chicago, II1. The property was in the city's central:: business district. · 5