Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 7 Signs/Religion—Town denies church a permit for electronic sign Church alleges violation of First Amendment and equal protection rights, as well as violation of federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act Citation: Signs for Jesus v. Town of Pembroke, 2017 DNH 16, 2017 WL 394493 (D.N.H. 2017) NEW HAMPSHIRE (01/27/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether the denial of a church's request for a permit to install an electronic sign on the church's property violated the church's First Amendment and equal protection rights under the United States Constitution and the New Hampshire Constitution, as well as the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The Background/Facts: Hillside Baptist Church (the "Church") wanted to install an electronic sign next to the road on its property in the Town of Pembroke (the "Town"). The Church's property was located in a Limited Office ("LO") zoning district. Under the Town's sign ordinance, electronic signs are barred in the LO district, as well as all other districts in the Town except for the Com- mercial District. Two other electronic signs were located on the same road as the Church in districts that did not permit such signs. One of the signs was on prop- erty owned by a gas station and predated the adoption of the Town's sign ordinance. The second sign was on property owned by a public school —a politi- cal subdivision of the state over which the Town had no zoning authority. In April 2015, the Church applied for a permit to install an electronic sign, The Town Code Enforcement Officer ("CEO") denied the Church's permit applica- tion because the proposed sign was to be erected in a district where electronic signs were prohibited. The Church then filed an administrative appeal. The Town's Zoning Board of Adjustment (the "Board") rejected the Church's appeal, finding that, under the Town's sign ordinance, an electronic sign was not permitted at the Church's location. The Church appealed to federal district court. The Church argued that the Board's denial of its request for an electronic sign permit violated: its First Amendment right to free speech; its First Amendment right to freely exercise its religion; its state and federal constitutional rights to equal protection; its Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process; and its rights under the undue burden and equal terms provisions of the federal. Both the Church and the Town moved for summary judgment, asking the court to find there were no material issues of fact and to decide the matter in their favor on the law alone. DECISION: Church's motion for summary judgment denied and Town's motion for summary judgment granted. The United States District Court, District of New Hampshire, held that the Town, in denying the Church an electronic sign permit did not violate the First © 2017 Thomson Reuters 9