Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 10 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 13 The Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. SIXTH CIRCUIT (OHIO) (05/18/16)—This case addressed the is- sue of whether a local government failed to treat a religious school on equal terms with nonreligious assemblies or institutions when the government denied the school's application for rezoning. The Background/Facts: In 2010, Tree of Life Christian Schools E ("TOL") purchased property (the "Property") in the city of Upper Arlington (the "City"). The Property was zoned "ORC Office and Research District" ("ORC District"). According to the City's Unified Development Ordinance ("UDO"), the purpose of the ORC District was to allow for offices and research facilities that would provide job opportunities and services to residents and "contribute to the City's economic stability."Permitted uses in the ORC District included:busi- ness and professional offices; research and development; book and periodical publishing;insurance carriers;corporate data centers;survey research firms; outpatient surgery centers; and hospitals. TOL sought to use the Property for a religious school,which was not an explicitly permitted use in the ORC District. TOL applied to the City for a rezone of its property to a Residential District, which al- lowed land to be used for schools, religious or otherwise. The City . Council denied TOL's rezoning request. In its denial the City Council focused on the City Master Plan's provision that specified a preference that the City maintain zoning for commercial uses in order to maximize its income-tax revenue. After the denial,TOL filed suit against the City.Among other things, TOL alleged that the City failed to treat TOL on equal terms with nonreligious assemblies or institutions—in violation of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act("RLUIPA"). RLUIPA protects land use as religious exercise in several ways. For example,it limits the government's ability to impose a land-use regula- tion "that imposes a substantial burden on" religious exercise. (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc(a)(1).) It also prohibits land-use regulation that "discriminates against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion," (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc(b)(2)), or "unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction," (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc(b)(3)(13)).The RLUIPA provision cited by TOL here, often called the Equal Terms Provision, provides that "[n]o government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a man- ner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution." (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc(b)(1).) Both TOL and the City moved for summary judgment, asking the district court to find there were no material issues of fact in dispute and to decide the matter in their favor on the law alone. ! I ©2016 Thomson Reuters 3 f is E" I a I I