Laserfiche WebLink
Page 8 -- October 10, 2003 <br /> <br />and was thus constitutional. The court rejected the due process claim, noting <br />that the churches were afforded the mirfimal process due in zoning cases. <br /> The churches appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> The churches could not pursue their RLUIPA claims. <br /> The court decided the conditions for granting permits were incidental to <br />any high-density urban land use request and did nor amount to a substantial <br />burden on religious exercise, While the necessary steps could contribute to <br />ordinary, difficulties, they did not make the use of real property within the city <br />for religious purposes impracticable. <br /> The court also agreed that the February, 2000 amendments brought the CZO <br />into compliance with RLUT. PA. Hav- <br />ing determined that the RLUIPA <br />claims were not applicable, the court <br />chose not to address the constitu- <br />tional claims. <br /> <br />Citation: Civil Liberties for Urban <br />Believers v. The Ci~.. of Chicago, 7th <br />U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, <br />Of-4030 (2003). <br /> <br />The 7th Circuit has jt~risdiction over <br />Illinois, Indiana, and ~Visconsin. <br /> <br />see also: Love Church v. City of <br />Evanston, 896 F2d 1082 (1990). <br /> <br />122 <br /> <br /> Zoning Bulletin <br />To order Zoning Bulletin, call (800) 229-2084, or complete and return this <br />%rm to Quinlan Publishing Group, 23 DE/dock Ave., Boston, MA 02210-2387, <br />or fax (800) 539-8839. <br /> $107 (plus $9.81 s&h.) -- 1 year (24 issues) <br /> <br /> ,3 New subscription Q Payment enclosed <br /> C2 Renewal subscription ¢-j Bill me ZBN3 <br /> <br />Name <br /> <br />Organization <br /> <br />Address <br /> <br />City State <br />Phone Fax <br />Emaii <br /> <br />Zip <br /> <br /> <br />