Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 21 a single-family residential zone to 30 feet in height, Milosavlejevic applied to the City for a height variance to construct his chapel. The City denied Milosavlejevic's variance request on the basis that Milosavlejevic met only two of eight mandatory criteria for granting variances. Milosavlejevic then filed a legal action against the City. Among other things, Milosavlejevic claimed that the City's denial of his requested height variance violated the substantial burden provision and the equal terms provi- sion of RLUIPA. (See 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc.) Under RLUIPA's substantial burden provision, a "government land -use regulation 'that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a [person, including a] religious assembly or institution' is unlawful `unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden . . . is in furtherance of a compelling government interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.' " (See 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc(a)(1).) Under RLUIPA's equal terms provision, governments are prohibited from imposing land -use "restriction[s] on a religious assembly 'on less than equal terms' with a nonreligious assembly." (See 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc(b).) The City argued that Milosavlejevic's RLUIPA claims failed because: (1) Milosavlejevic failed to demonstrate that his exercise of religion was substantially burdened by the City's denial of his variance request because alternative locations exited in which Milosavlejevic could practice his religion; and (2) Milosavlejevic was not a "religious assembly," and even if he was, the City did not treat him on "less than equal terms to comparable nonreligious or secular assemblies or institutions." The City asked the court to find there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and to issue summary judgment in its favor on the law alone. DECISION:. City's motion for summary judgment granted, and Milosavlejevic's claims dismissed. The United States District Court, W.D. Washington, held that Milosavle- jevic's RLUIPA claims failed. In so holding, the court agreed with the City's arguments. The court found that Milosavlejevic failed to demonstrate that his free exercise of religion was "substantially burdened" by the city's failure to grant his requested height variance. The court found that Milosavlejevic had "ready alternative places of worship at his disposal," including at home or other faith centers. The court noted that Milosavlejevic's own witness, an Orthodox priest, had stated that Milosavlejevic's prayer could take place anywhere, including within other churches and homes. The court also found that the City had not precluded Milosavlejevic from practicing his faith at home or other faith centers. Fur- ther, the court stated that "the City's zoning procedures do not impose a substantial burden simply because they prevent a religious institution or person from constructing an ideal place of worship." While worshipping within a home or church in the local county was "unsatisfactory" to Milosavlejevic, that "inconvenience [did] not rise to the level of a substantial burden," said the court. Additionally, the court noted that Milosavlejevic had the option of submitting a building permit application for land located within a different © 2017 Thomson Reuters 5