Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />City of Woodinville v. <br />Northshore United Church of <br />Christ, 211 P.3d 406 (Wash. <br />2009). <br />McGann v Inc. Vill. Of Old <br />Westbury, 719 N.Y.S.2d 803 <br />(N.Y. Sup. 2000). <br />Williams Island Synagogue, <br />Inc. v. City ofAventura, 358 <br />F.Supp.2d 1207 (S.D. Fla. <br />2005). <br />Guru Nanak Sikh Society of <br />Yuba City v. County of Sutter, <br />326 F.Supp.2d 1140 (E.D. <br />Cal. 2003). <br />Cottonwood Christian Center <br />v. Cypress Redevelopment <br />Agency, 218 F.Supp.2d 1203 <br />(C.D. Cal. 2002). <br />Civil Liberties for Urban <br />Believers v. City of Chicago, <br />342 F.3d 752 (C.A.7 (111.) <br />2003). <br />47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). <br />• Treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a <br />nonreligious assembly or institution. For example, a zoning ordinance <br />that allows community centers and fraternal organization centers in a <br />particular district, but not a religious center (such as a church, mosque or <br />synagogue), whose use would be strikingly similar to the other allowed <br />uses. <br />• Discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion <br />or religious denomination. <br />• Totally excludes religious assemblies from their jurisdiction or <br />unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures <br />within a jurisdiction. <br />Activities beyond worship services for religious institutions may potentially <br />be protected by the RLUIPA, including schools and childcare. However, this <br />is an unsettled area of the current law. <br />Since RLUIPA was adopted in 2000, numerous cases have been brought in <br />federal court concerning the law's application to various city zoning <br />requirements. However, federal courts in the 8th Circuit (which includes <br />Minnesota) have not ruled on many RLUIPA cases. If a city has concerns <br />about RLUIPA, the city should consult its attorney for specific guidance. <br />4. Federal law considerations: Telecommunications <br />Act of 1996 <br />The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 influences local zoning <br />regulation of wireless telecommunications towers and antennas. Under the <br />Act, local governments may generally regulate the placement, construction, <br />and modification of cell towers through zoning ordinances and land use <br />regulations. However, local zoning regulations may not unreasonably <br />discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. Local <br />zoning regulations also may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the <br />provision of wireless services. Under the Act any decision to deny a request <br />to place, construct or modify cell towers must be in writing and supported by <br />substantial evidence in the written record. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 9/10/2012 <br />Zoning Guide for Cities Page 12 <br />