Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2004

Home

134 Page 8--June 25,2004 was no dispute the proposed facility would be Iocated within one-third of a mile of such essential basic services. That was a distance of only an additional one-twelfTh of a mile. Given the intent of the ordinance, its failure to define how one-fourth of a mile was to be measm'ed, the fact the difference in the actual and "reqUired" distance was only one 4welfth of'a mile, and that the proposal contained provi- sions for future on-site retail services, the council clearly abused its discretion in denying the application. Religious Use -- Church challenges zoning ordinance Claims city won't permit churches as assembly halls Citation: The Lightho~tse [nsrit~te ~br Eyangelism [nc. v. The City of Long Branch, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 03-2343 (2004) The 3rd U.S. Circ,dt Court of Appeals has j~risdicrion over Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands. NEW JERSEY (05/28/04) -- The Mission was a Christian church serving the poor and disadvantaged in Long Branch, N.J. The Mission bought a property across the street from its rented property; both properties were in the C-1 com- mercial district. The Mission applied for a zoning permit to operate as a church and asked all fees to be waived as a nonprofit church. The city denied the application because the proposed use was not permit- ted in the zone. The Mission did not appeal the decision or seek?a variance, but instead sued and asked for a temporary order alIowing it to operate. It claimed the ordinance violated the First and t4th Amendments and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The lower court denied the temporary order and dismissed the Mission's claims. The Mission appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Mission could not prove i't was Likely to succeed on its claims, so it was not entitled to a temporary order. To receive a temporary order to. allow the church to operate at its new property, it had to show: 1) it was reasonab{y likely to prevail in its lawsuit and, 2) it was likely to suffer irreparable harm without relief. The Mission failed to show it was likely to succeed on its claims. The ordinance identified perrmtted uses, including assembly halls, bowling alleys, and motion picture theaters. However, the Mission only listed "church" in [ts application, and it was not clear whether the city would permit the Mission to operate under the semblv hail category. There was no evidence showing that Long Branch only allowed secular assemblies. In fact, there were a number of churches cu~ently located within the zone. (cD _.>004 ©uinlan P,~lisiqmg :3roup. Any :eproc~ucrion ~s prohibited. ~:,)r more information please call (617) 5424)048.