Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2005

Home

Page 4 -- June 25, 2005 Z.B. Church -- Church application denied, has to resubmit application Claims denial substantially burdens its religious freedom Citation: Corporation of the'Presiding Bishop of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. City of West Linn, Supreme Court of Oregon, No. SC S51504 (2005) OREGON (05/05/05) --'The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of.the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints wanted to build a new meeting house the city of West Linn. The church had no meeting house in West Linn, and many of its congregants had to travel to Lake Oswego to attend church. Because the congregation had grown, the Lake Oswego meetinghouse had become very crowded. The church applied for the necessary permits from the city planning com- mission. The commission u.ltimately voted to deny the application, based on visual, size, and noise impacts of the new building. The church Sued, arguing the den/al violated i.[s religi.~>us fights. The court ruled in favor of the city. The church appealed, arguing that resubmitting the application would be a substantial burden on its practice of religion. DECISION:Affirmed. The church did not suffer a substantial burden. The city's decision required the church to submit a new permk application that reflected the use of a greater portion of an available lot, provided for additional buffering, and included all of the required noise studies. The resubmission necessarily would impose additional expenses on the church. Also, it would create delays, during which church members would continue to face crowded conditions at their Lake Oswego meetinghouse and the longer drive required to get there. However, these hardships did not constitute substantial burdens. The church already indicated it could acquire more land to provide the necessary buffering space between the parking lot and street the city requested. The expenses associated with submitting a new application did not constitute a substantial burden in and of themselves, nor did the requirement of submit- ting the application. The siting of a large building often involved multiple applications by the builder; changes requested by a city planning commission or city council based on zoning and similar requirements; and' related Iegal, architectural, and engi- neering costs. The city gave specific reasons for denying the fh:s~ application, and nothing in the record indicated the city would not approve a revised appli- cation. There was no evidence the crowded conditions at the meetinghouse forced the church to turn away anyone who wished to attend church or to eliminate or © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is orohibited For more information ¢lease call (617) 542-0048. ~04