Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/09/2014

Home

December 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 23 Zoning Bulletin Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute and deciding the matter on the law alone, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the County and Woodboro. The court found that the County and Woodboro did not unreasonably limit religious assemblies in their respective jurisdictions, but rather, Eagle Cove's insistence on locating the year-round camp on the subject property impeded the exercise of their religious beliefs. Eagle Cove appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, agreed that the land use regulations did not violate RLUIPA. The court found that Eagle Cove's argument that Woodboro violated RLU- IPA's total exclusion provision by totally excluding religious recreational camps from within its borders failed. The court noted that Woodboro had relinquished its jurisdiction over land use regulations to the County, and that there was ample evidence to suggest that operating a year-round Bible camp would be possible in many parts of the County. The court also found that, contrary to Eagle Cove's claims, the County did not impose a substantial burden on Eagle Cove's religious rights. The court noted again that there were numerous locations within the County for Eagle Cove to place its Bible camp. Nevertheless, Eagle Cove had insisted that the camp must be built on the subject Property. The court thus found that it was not the land use regulations that created the substantial burden, but rather Eagle Cove's insistence that the expansive, year-round Bible camp be placed on the subject property. The zoning regulations did not seek to inhibit Eagle Cove's religious activity, said the court. Rather, they merely encouraged an. . area of quiet seclusion for families around the lake. Finally, the court also found that the Ordinance did not violate RLUIPA's equal terms provision. The court found that the Ordinance did not treat religious land uses, in particular year-round Bible camps, less favorably than their secular counterparts. While the Single Family Residential zoning district, wherein the Subject property lay, permitted certain religious and secular as- semblies, recreational camps were prohibited outright, regardless of affiliation. See also: Vision Church v. Village of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2006). See also: Petra Presbyterian Church v. Village of Northbrook, 489 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 2007). Case Note: Eagle Cove had also contended that Article 1, § 18 of the Wisconsin Constitution of- fered it protection fr•onn the kind use regulations. Article I, § 18 provides for freedom to worship, and Wisconsin applies a compelling state interest/least restrictive alterna- tive test when a claim is brought challenging a state law that violates an organization or individual's freedom of conscience. The test requires that the organization prove it has a sincere religious belief and that such belief is burdened by the state law at issue. The burden is then shifted to the state to rebut the claim by showing a compelling state interest that cannot be served by a less restrictive alternative. The court found that, 4 2013 Thomson Reuters