Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 21 i Citation: Church a City of St.Michael,2016 WL 4545310(D.Minn. 2016) MINNESOTA(08/31/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether,among other things, a zoning ordinance prohibiting churches in a business zoning district violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and/or the Fast Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Background/Facts: With increasing attendance at its location in Big Lake,Minnesota,Riverside Church(the"Church")sought to add a second loca- tion for worship. Starting in January 2014, the Church sought to purchase the 'Theater Property"in the City of St.Michael(the"City").The Theater Property included a building that formerly operated as a 15-screen movie th6ater. The Theater Property was located in the City's B-1(business) zoning district. "As- sembly,religious institution,house of worship"were permitted uses in four res- idential districts in the City.Those uses were also permitted as a conditional use in the public/institutional (P/I) district of the City. However, they were a prohibited use in the"B-1"district. When the Church petitioned the City to amend the zoning ordinance to allow churches as a permitted use in the B-I district,the City denied the petition.The h Church then filed a lawsuit against the City.Thereafter,in April 2015, the City amended the zoning ordinance to permit churches as conditional uses in the B-1 district,and the City granted the Church a conditional useer p mrt.Nevertheless, the Church pursued its lawsuit. The Ci claimed that the ( City amendments to the zoning ordinance mooted the Church's claims.The court,however, determined that the Church's claims for damages and attorney fees still presented a live controversy, and allowed the Church's claims to move forward insofar as they were claims for compensatory damages and attorney's fees.) In its lawsuit, among other things, the Church challenged the former zoning ordinance under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persops,Act ("RLUIPA") (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5). The Church claimed that, by prohibiting churches in the business zoning district, the City violated two provisions of RLUIPA:the"substantial burden"provision and the"equal terms" provision. The"substantial burden"provision limits land use regulations that substantially burden religious exercise. Specifically, it provides that: "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that i imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that q imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution—(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B)is the least restric- tive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." (42 U.S.C.A. §2000cc(a)(1).)The"equal terms"provision demands that land use regulations treat religious institutions on equal terms with secular institutions. It provides: "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner 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).) Here, the Church claimed that the City's zoning ordinance,prior to its April 2015 amendment,violated RLUIPA by prohibiting"Assembly,religious instim- tion, house of worship"uses in the B-1 district, while allowing"Theaters (not outdoor drive-in)"and later"Multi-flex Theaters."As such,the Church argued that the zoning ordinance, and the City's denial of the Church's Planning Application: "(1) imposed a substantial burden on the Church's exercise of ©2016 Thomson Reuters 3 I I r li'