01/06/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 6 -- November 25:0,2004 Z.B. The court found Nechamen failed to show that he would have suffered ~ hardship if the variance were not granted. Reliance on the fact that the property had been in the same continuous ownership since before the establishment of the zoning regulations was not a sufficient legal hardship. 'variances could not be personal in nature, and could be based only on property conditions. Consequently, the identity of a particular user of the land was irrelevant to zoning. The basic zoning principle that zoning regulations had to affect the land directly, and not the owners of land, limited the ability of zoning boards to act for personal rather than principled reasons. If the board's argument that continuous ownership of a pre-existing, non- conforming use constituted a legally cognizable hardship was correct, the ef- fect would be to shift the analysis of the property to the owners and users of the property. Therefore, the board lacked'the authority to grant a variance based on Nechamen's continuous ownership of the property: see also: Dupont v. Zoning Board of'Appeals, 834 A.2d 801 (200?). First Amendment -- Township refuses variance for reli~ous retreat Grants it bed-and-breakfast permit instead Citation: DiLaura v, Township of Ann Arbor, 6th U,S. Circuit Court of'Appeals, No. 03-1635 (2004) The 6~h U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over Kentuc~, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. MICHIGAN (10/06/04) -- The Apostolate for the Eucharistic Life requested permission from the Township of Ann Arbor to operate a religious retreat, intended primarily for the practice of contemplative prayer. The township refused to give the church a variance to open its retreat, but it did award a permit to operate its property as a bed and break:fast. The church sued, arguing the township's decision violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by substantially burdening its exercise of religion. The court ruled in its favor. The township appealed, arguing the granting of the bed-and-breakfast per- mit rendered the church's argmnent moot. DECLSION: :&flirmed. The township had illegally burdened the church's exercise of religion. The issuance of a bed-and-breakfast permit did not render the case moot because tl~e restrictions connected with such a petTnit would substantially limit the church's intended use of the property. For exampie, the bed-and-brea~'ast regulations required payment by the "~uests" of such a facility. Such payment was a substantial burden on any ,:eligious activity. The church ',vas also barred from serving alcohol, which would have restricted '© 2004 ~gUinlar~ P,mlisnln9 Gmuo. },ny :eproc~uc',ion ;s prohibited, --or more :nformauon 3iease call 617~ 542-0048. 90