Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 21 would only be constitutional if:"narrowly tailored to serve a significant govern- ment interest" and with "ample alternative channels for communication of in- formation"left open.The court found there remained a genuine issue of mate- rial fact with respect to whether the zoning ordinance's ban on religious uses in the B-1 district was "narrowly tailored" to advance the City's government interests(i.e.,economy and employment opportunities). Finally,the court also concluded that the City's zoning ordinance prohibiting churches in the B-1 district did not violate the Church's First Amendment right of free religious exercise, as the Church had claimed.The court found that the zoning ordinance use prohibition in the B-1 district(as well as a City'tordinance placing a temporary moratorium on assembly,theater,or church uses in the B-1 district)were"rationally related to the City's efforts to prevent negative second- ary effects of certain land uses, protect economic vitality, and promote public safety,"and were therefore"valid"under a rational basis review. See also: Civil Liberties for Urbara Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2003). Case Note: In reaching its decision on the RLUIPA claims, the court noted that the United States District Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit(which has jurisdiction over Minnesota) had not yet construed the RLUIPA safe harbor provision.As such, the court here looked to the Seventh Circuit's interpretation of the safe harbor provision, as well as the deci- sions of courts in two districts that have relied on the Seventh Circuit's holding. (See, Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2003); Grace Church of Roaring Fork Valley v. Bd. of Cty. Conrn'rs, 742 F.Supp.2d 1156 (D.Colo. 2010);Petra Presbyterian Church v. Village of Northbrook, 409 F.Supp.2d 1001 (N.D.Ill.2006), aff'd,489 F.3d 846(7th Cir. 2007);Boles v.Neet, 402 F.Supp.2d 1237(D.Colo. 2005).)(But see Family Life Church v. City of Elgin, Civ. No. 07-217, 2007 WL 2790763, at*5(ND.Ill. 2007)(denying defendant's motion to dismiss and stating, "we do not read. . .RLUIPA or Civil Liberties to stand for the proposition that . . .corrective action can retroactively erase injuries already incurred. . .").) is Case Note: With regard to the RLUIPA claims,the court also held that even if the safe harbor provi- sion did not apply, the Church's RLUIPA claims ivould fail because:(I)neither the zon- ing ordinance prohibiting churches in the B-1 district nor the City's denial of the Church's Planning Application constituted a substantial burden under RLUIPA since the Church could have established a site in any other zoning district in the City;and(2) the City's prohibitionon churches in the B-1 zoning district, while permitting movie theaters, did not violate RLUIPA's equal terns provision because "churches are not similarly situated to rrrovie theaters as to regulatory purpose or zoning criteria." 4 F ©2016 Thomson Reuters 5 1 i 4 k I 1 c . r