Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2018 1 Volume 12 I Issue 7 special exception to zoning ordinances was proper. Among other things, the case addressed whether a zoning board's grant of a special exception violated a religious summer youth camp's religious rights under federal and state law. The Background/Facts: In Rush County (the "County"), Milco Dairy Farm, LLC ("Milco") sought to construct and operate a concentrated animal feeding operation ("CAFO"), which was to consist of a dairy operation maintaining 1,400 head of cattle. In furtherance of those plans, Milco filed with the County's Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") a petition for a special exception from the County's zoning ordinances. The BZA ultimately granted Milco's special exception, subject to various conditions of approval. House of Prayer Ministries, Inc., d/b/a Harvest Christian Camp ("House of Prayer") owned property one-half mile downwind from Milco's proposed CAFO. On its property, House of Prayer operated a religious summer youth camp. House of Prayer objected to Milco's special exception request. House of Prayer argued that the 17.4 mil- lion gallons of waste produced by the CAFO, which was to be stored on Milco's property in open-air lagoons, would be "dangerous to at- tendees at House of Prayer's events and that the prevailing winds in the area would make the CAFO both a nuisance to House of Prayer and a risk to its attendees." House of Prayer also asserted that the construction of the CAFO would diminish the property value of House of Prayer's property. House of Prayer appealed the BZA's decision that granted the special exception to Milco. House of Prayer alleged that the BZA, in issuing the special exception, failed to properly: evaluate the public interest; consider the impact on surrounding properties; and consider setback requirements. House of Prayer also alleged that the BZA's decision to grant the special exception to Milco violated House of Prayer's religious rights under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5), Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA") (Ind. Code §§ 34-13-9-1 to -11), and/or Article 1, Sec- tions 2 and 3 of the Indiana Constitution. The circuit court denied House of Prayer's petition for judicial review and request for declaratory judgment. House of Prayer appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Circuit Court affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Indiana held that the BZA had properly issued the special exception to Milco, and, in doing so, had not violated House of Prayer's religious rights under federal or state law. © 2018 Thomson Reuters 9