Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2005

Home

Page 2 -- October I0, 2005. Fh'stAmendment-- Church cl:~ims religious freedom damaged'by zoning requirements City wants 'it to comply with setback and parking requirements ' Citation:- House of Fire Chria'tian Church v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Clifton, Superior Court of New Jersey, App. Div., No. A-2019-O3T2 (2005) NEW JERSEY (08/22/05),-- The House of Fire Christian Church bought a piece of property within a single-family residential zone. Houses of worship were permitted as conditional uses. The church applied for a variance. It requested relief from minimum lot size and width requirements. While the application was pending,.the city, increased the number of necessary parking spaces because of the Church's planned Sun- day school and its large meeting haH.. It also increased the- church'S rear yard setback requirements.. After soy?roi hearings, the zoning board denied the church's application. The church sued, claiming the zoning requirements violated its constitu- tional fight to freedom of religion. The court ruled in its favor. The city appealed, arguing the zoning requirements caused' nothing more than an inconvenience to the church. DECISION: Reversed. The Church did not prove the city violated~its religious rights. To prevail, the church had to demonstrate the land use regulction actually imposed a substantial burden on religiqus exercise. A substantial burden had to be more than an inconvenience. It had to coerce religious adherents' to forego religious precepts or conduct.. Importantly, it had to affect the function of a particular church. . The church failed to prove that complying with the conditional use ordi- nance or attempting to seek: a variance from the ordinance'was more than a mere inconvenience to the church. see also: Cell South of New Jersey [nc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of West W~ndsor Township, 796 A.2d 247 (2002). see also: Men'dian Quality Care [nc. v. Board of Adjustment of Township of Wall, 810 A.2d 57I (2002).: Signs-- Ordinance allows certain types of signs without a permit Property owner claims ordinance violates Constitution Citation: Lusk v. Village of Cold Spring, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 04 Civ. $56i (CM)(LMS) (2005) NEW YORK (08/19/05) -- Lusk posted signs on his property protesting a planned development on the Village of Cold Spring waterfront. In the past, Lusk also posted a number of similar signs, all of which were non-commercial and © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 170