Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin July 25, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 14 <br />See also: Third Church of Christ, Scientist, of New York City v. City of <br />New York, 626 F.3d 667 (2d Cir. 2010). <br />Case Note: In addressing the Church's challenge, the court noted <br />that four circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals had "constructed <br />different tests for applying the Clause, each with varying determi- <br />nations of which nonreligious assemblies and institutions are prop- <br />er comparators to the religious assembly or institution that brings <br />the claim." The Third Circuit's test, which the district court here <br />had applied, provides that: "a regulation will violate the Equal <br />Terms provision [of RLUIPA] only if it treats religious assemblies <br />or institutions less well than secular assemblies or institutions that <br />are similarly situated as to the regulatory purpose." The Eleventh <br />Circuit's test, which the Church asserted the district court should <br />have applied —and which the Fifth Circuit apparently did apply <br />here —provides that: "[w]hen alleging discriminatory application <br />[of an ordinance], a religious plaintiff must show that 'a similarly <br />situated nonreligious comparator received differential treatment <br />under the challenged regulation." The Seventh Circuit provides <br />that: "a zoning ordinance violates the Clause if it treats a religious <br />assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreli- <br />gious assembly or institution that is similarly situated as to 'ac- <br />cepted zoning criteria." The court found that the Second Circuit <br />seems to provide that: a zoning ordinance violates the Clause if <br />it fails to treat equally a religious institution and a nonreligious <br />"comparator that is similarly situated for all `functional intents <br />and purposes' of the regulation." <br />Agriculture and Farming Uses —County <br />Enforces Land Use Restrictions Against Farming <br />Operations <br />Farmer says such restrictions are prohibited by Right to <br />Farm Act <br />Citation: Wilson v. Palm Beach County, 2011 WL 2330077 (Fla. Dist. <br />Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2011) <br />FLORIDA (06/15/11)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />Florida's Right to Farm Act prohibits enforcement of county ordinanc- <br />es enacted prior to the Act's effective date. <br />The Background/Facts: Richard Wilson ("Wilson") and his two <br />business entities, Plant Explorers, LLC ("Plant Explorers") and Excali- <br />bur Fruit Trees, LLC, own and operate a nursery on several parcels of <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />