Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 25, 2013 ( Volume 7 I Issue 6 developers could purchase rights from landowners in the rural density transfer zone to build in other areas of the County. The property of the landowner who sold the development rights would then be subject to an easement, which restricted the density of residential development permitted on that property. Prior to 2007, the easements did not affect institutional use of property in the zone, so a church was a permitted use on Bethel's property. In October 2007, the County Council adopted an amendment to its zoning provision, ZTA 07-07 (the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance prohibited a land- owner from building a private institutional facility on any property subject to a transferable development rights easement. Because Bethel's Property was subject to such an easement, the Ordinance barred Bethel from building even a small -sized church on the Property. In May 2008, Bethel filed a legal action in federal court. It alleged that the Ordinance violated its rights under RLUIPA, the First and Fourth Amend- ments to the United States Constitution, and the Maryland Declaration of Rights. More specifically, Bethel had argued that the County violated: (1) the substantial burden provision of RLUIPA (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc(a)(1)); (2) RLUIPA's nondiscrimination provision (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc(b)(2)); (3) RLUIPA's unreasonable limitation provision (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc(b)(3)(B); and (4) its free exercise and equal protection rights under the United States Constitutionand the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The County moved for summary judgment. It asked the district court to find that there were no material issues of fact and to decide the matter in its favor on the law alone. The district court issued summary judgment to the County on all claims. Bethel appealed. DECISION: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and matter remanded. The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, held that: (1) a genuine issue of material fact precluded summary judgment on Bethel's RLUIPA substantial -burden claim; (2) the County did not violate RLUIPA's nondis- crimination provision; (3) the Ordinance did not constitute an unreasonable limitation on a religious institution under RLUIPA; and (4) the Ordinance did not violate Bethel's free exercise rights. The court explained: Bethel's principal argument had been that it had bought property reasonably expecting to build a church and the County Ordinance impeding the building of the Church imposed a substantial burden on Bethel's religious exercise in viola- tion of RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1)). RLUIPA's substantial burden provision prohibits the imposition or implementation of any land use regulation in a manner that: "imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise [(including the use, build- ing, or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise)] of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution . . . is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least re- strictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." The Fourth Circuit court found that the district court had applied the wrong © 2013 Thomson Reuters 9