Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

October 25, 201 1 1 Volume 5 I No. 20 Zoning Bulletin social, education, recreational, or otherwise —can meet together to pursue their interests.'" The City also argued that, in any case, the 2004 Ordinance passed a strict scrutiny analysis since the prohibition on religious assemblies in residential areas was a narrowly tailored means of achieving the City's compelling inter- est in preserving residential neighborhoods and protecting those areas from traffic, crowds, and disruption. Again, the court disagreed. The court concluded that the 2004 Ordinance did not pass strict scrutiny. The court said that "a complete prohibition of religious assemblies in residential zones [was not] a narrowly tailored means of achieving the City's interests ...." The court found that recreation centers, parks, and playgrounds had a similar potential for community disruption, increased traffic, and encroachment into residential neighborhoods. Yet, the 2004 Ordinance permitted those such uses. The City was not protecting those interests from nonreligious conduct. Moreover, said the court, those interests "could be achieved by narrower ordinances that do not improperly distinguish between similar secular and religious assemblies." See also: Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2004). See also: Primera Igiesia Bautista Hispana of Boca Raton, Inc. v. Broward County, 450 F.3d 1 295 (11th Cir. 2006). Case Note: The district court had remedied the 2004 Ordinance's facial violation of RLUIPA by striking private parks, playgrounds, and neigh- borhood recreation centers from the list of permitted uses in residen- tial zones. On appeal, Covenant had argued that the court erred and that the remedy should have been to add language allowing churches in residential zones. The court of appeals found the district court's remedy was "consistent with the purposes of the zoning restrictions in the R -2 - zone." "By striking private parks, playgrounds, and neighborhood rec- reation centers, the district court remedied the unequal treatment prob- lem while maintaining the residential character of the R -2 zone," said the court. Case Note: Covenant had also argued that it had a vested right to a building permit because the 2004 Ordinance had been ruled to be par- tially invalid. The court of appeals rejected this vested rights argument. Covenant could not invoke a vested rights "equitable" argument since Covenant "did not reasonably rely on any act or omission by the City ... and did not investigate the zoning status of its property until after closing." 4 © 2011 Thomson Reuters