Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 20 No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, includ- ing a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least re- strictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc(a)(1). The Church also claimed that the City violated RLUIPA's equal terms provision by treating similarly situated comparators differently. RLUIPA generally "forbids governments, when implementing a land use regula- tion, from treating religious institutions on less than equal terms than secu- lar entities." (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc(b)(1).) The Church brought additional claims: that the City violated RLUIPA by placing "unreasonable limits" on the Church's religious exercise; that the City deprived the Church of its right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983; and that the City violated the Church's rights under § 7 of the Kansas Constitution's Bill of Rights. Each party brought motions for summary judgment, asking the court to find there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and to decide the claims in their favor on the law alone. DECISION: City's Motion for Summary Judgment granted in part and denied in part. Church's Motion for Summary Judgment denied. Looking first at the Church's RLUIPA substantial burden claim, the United States District Court, District of Kansas, explained that "[a] govern- ment places a `substantial burden' on a religious institution when it denies that institution a reasonable opportunity to engage in religious activity." "Mere inconvenience is not enough." Here, denying both party's motions for summary judgment on this claim, the court said that whether a govern- ment has imposed a substantial burden or mere an inconvenience is a fact question that a jury must resolve (and thus not to be solved on summary judgment). Still, the court expounded to explain the two requirements a plaintiff, such as the Church here, must meet to establish a substantial burden under RLUIPA (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc(a)(1)): (1) a need to expand or relocate; and (2) actions by defendant (e.g., here, the City) that inhibited their abil- ity to expand or relocate. "A religious institution can demonstrate a need to expand or relocate by showing, among other things, that it can't rear- range its existing space to accommodate its needs," said the court. "Alternatively, a religious institution can adduce evidence that it has turned people away, its facilities are overcrowded, or the church can't form certain groups because they lack enough space." Further, noted the court, religious institutions can show that the government "acted to inhibit their ability to expand or relocate by showing the government actor refused to consider reasonable limits on the property's use, . . . or that a plaintiff had a rea- sonable expectation of building there , . .." © 2018 Thomson Reuters 9