Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016

Home

July 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 13 Zoning Bulletin { The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. In doing so, the district court found that TOL's proposed zoning change would "eliminate nearly 16 acres of extremely limited ORC-zoned ground" and would thus be "contrary to the City's long-term financial interests." TOL appealed. DECISION:Reversed and matter remanded. The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, concluded that the district court erred in issuing summary judgment to the City because there remained a material issue of fact that could not be decided on summary judgment: whether there were nonreligious assemblies or institutions to which the district court should compare the TOL's proposed school. In so holding, the court explained that, by enacting RLUIPA, Congress directed federal courts "to scrutinize municipal land-use regulations that function to exclude disfavored religious groups like TOL . ." With regard to RLUIPA's Equal Terms Provision ap- plicable here,the court noted that different circuits have interpreted the provision differently. Some hold that a land-use regulation must treat "similarly situated" religions and nonreligious assemblies and institu- tions equally. Others hold that a government land-use regulation that discriminates against a religious assembly or institution in comparison to any nonreligious assembly or institution is,invalid unless narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. The court here, however, decided that it"need not definitively choose among the vari- ous tests used by other circuits in order to resolve this case." Rather, the court concluded that granting summary judgment to the City was erroneous under any test,because"summary judgment must be denied in a proceeding for equitable relief. . . where genuine issues of mate- rial fact exist." Here,the court found that the City did not deny that the UDO would allow other nonprofit institutions such as hospitals and outpatient care centers in the ORC District. Thus, the court found that the City did treat other assemblies or institutions more favorably. The question remained, said the court, whether those more favorably treated as- semblies and institutions were similarly situated(and thus resulting in the unequal treatment amounting to a violation of RLUIPA). TOL had alleged that the more favorably treated assemblies and institutions were similarly situated in that they would fail, like TOL,to maximize income-tax revenue for the City. The court found those al- legations created"a genuine issue of fact as to whether the [City] treats more favorably assemblies or institutions similarly situated with re- spect to maximizing revenue, unless the [City] [could] demonstrate that no assemblies or institutions could be similarly situated." 4 ©2016 Thomson Reuters