Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2003

Home

October 10, 2003 -- Page 7 opinions. Consequently, it was wrong to rule in the township's favor when it chose to present no evidence of its own. Citation: Grand Communities Ltd. v. Stonelick Township, Court of Appeals of Ohio, f2rh App. Dist., Clermont Co., iVo. G'-i2003-Of-O03 (2003). see also: Shemo v. City of Mayfietd Heights, 765 N.£.2d 345 (2002). see also: Graf-ton v. Ohio Edison Co., 67I N.£.2d 241 (1996). Churches -- Ordinance requires special use permits for churches Does requirement violate Religious Land Use and [nstirutional Persons Act? ILLINOIS (08/20/03) --. The Chicago Zoning Ordinance (CZO) divided the City of Chicago into R, B, C, and M zones for residential, business, commer- cial, and manufacturing uses. Most of the land stili available for development was zoned R. Churches were allowed in R zones, but they were considered variations in the nature of special uses in B zones and C1, C2, C3, and C5 districts. Special use permits had to be approved by the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) and were conditioned on the design, location, 'and operation of the proposed use consis- tent with the protection of public health, safety, and weffare. Further, the proposed use could not substantially injure the values of neigh-' boring properties. It was estimated that the cost of obtaining a special use per- mit could approach $5,000. In areas zoned C4 or M, the Chicago City Council had to vote in favor of a map amendment. The Civil Liberties for Urban Believers (CLUB).represented several reli- gious and nonprofit corporations, including five individual churches that sued, challenging the CZO pursuant to Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act (RLUIPA). The churches also claimed the CZO required a process of ob- taining special use permits that violated their rights to free exercise of reli~on, speech, and assembly under the First Amendment, as well as equal protection and procedural due process. The churches claimed they were forced to pay substantial legal.fees, charges, and other expenses in attempting To find suitable property. In response to these claims, the city amended the CZO in February 2000, and one of the provisions of the amendment exempted churches from the re- quirement that a special use permit applicant affirmatively demonstrate the proposed use was "necessary for the public convenience at that location." The' district court ganted judgment without a trial to the city and decided the February 2000 amendments to the CZO removed any potential substantial burden on religious exercise. Further, the amendment helped the city to avoid any of the preemptive force of RLUIPA by chan~ng policies and practices resulting in substantial burden on religious exercise. The lower court also rejected the equal protection claims, finding that the city's zoning scheme was rationally related to a legitimate government purpose 121