Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 7 <br />Prayer's religious exercise in violation of RLUIPA because it <br />"imperiled the health of the children" at House of Prayer's religious <br />youth summer camp. The court disagreed. It held that RLUIPA did <br />not apply to House of Prayer here because House of Prayer did not <br />have "a property interest in the regulated land." The court noted that <br />RLUIPA applies to land use regulations imposed by a government <br />directly on religious groups, and explained that the land regulated by <br />special exception here was wholly owned by Milco. Since House of <br />Prayer had no property interest in the land being regulated, it could <br />not rely on RLUIPA held the court. <br />House of Prayer had asserted that "regulated land" in RLUIPA <br />meant any land that was "affected" by a regulation, even if the <br />regulation was specifically direct to land in which the claimant (such <br />as House of Prayer, here) has no interest. As a matter of first impres- <br />sion (i.e., the first time Indiana courts ruled on the issue), the court <br />rejected such an interpretation that RLUIPA was "available to any <br />property owner whose interests might be affected by a given regula- <br />tion," concluding instead that RLUIPA is only available to claimants <br />who have a property interest in the land that is being regulated. <br />Further, the court explained that, similar to RLUIPA, Indiana's <br />RFRA (Ind. Code §§ 34-13-9-1 to -11), as well as Article 1, Sections <br />2 and 3 of the Indiana Constitution, prohibited a governmental entity <br />from substantially burdening religious exercise. The court found <br />that, here, substantial evidence supported the BZA's conclusion that <br />the House of Prayer would not be substantially burdened in the <br />exercise of its religion by the grant of the special exception. Accord- <br />ingly, the court concluded that House of Prayer's claims under RFRA <br />and the Indiana Constitution failed. <br />Zoning News from Around the <br />Nation <br />MARYLAND <br />Montgomery County is considering amendment zoning laws to <br />support community solar installations. The proposed zoning text <br />amendment would allow community solar energy installations with <br />a capacity of up to 2 Megawatts. Currently, Montgomery County's <br />zoning code restricts solar projects to a limited use in nearly all zones <br />and limits solar energy production to 120% of on -site energy <br />consumption. <br />Source: Solar Industry; httvs://solarindustrvmag.com <br />© 2018 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />