Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005

Home

Page 4 -- October 25, 2005 It followed from this that ordinary court rules were not sufficient to prevent undue delaY, resulting in the unconstitutional suppression of protected speech. Because of the discretion it ~anted to governmental officials, the townsbip's licensing scheme required special rules that guaranteed an unusually speedy judicial decision. No such rules' were provided in the ordinance or by state law. see also: Ddja :Vu .of Nashville Inc. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 274 F, 3d 377 (2001). see also: City of Litrleton v. Z.J. Girls D-4 LLC, 54] U.S, 774, 124 S. Ct. 22]9, 159 L,£d. 2d 84 (2004). Reli¢ous Use -- Township denies church permit based on planned building size Church argues unreasonable burden on its freedom of religion Citation: Living Water Church of God v. Charter Township of Meridian, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, No. 5:04-CV-06 (2005) MICHIGAax4 (08/23/05) ~ The Living Water Church of God owned property in a single-family residential, medium density zone in the Charter Township of Meridian. Under the township zoning ordinance, a reli~ous institution was allowed in a residential zone only under a special use permit. In 1994, the church applied for a permit to erect a single-story, 10,925- square-foo, t building ro use as a sanctuary and daycare for 40 children. The township granted the application. In 2000, the church obtained a permit to increase enrollment at the daycare to 72 children and to construct a 28,500-square-foot school building for 280 students. In 2003, the church f'~led an amendment to its permit to build a new educa- tion center. The 2003 application included more square footage; however, the outward appearance was substantially the same. In fact, the footprint of the 2003 proposal was 1,500 square feet smaller than the 2000 proposal because it included a larger basement. Also, the 2003 proposal significantly reduced the planned class size. This time, the township denied the Church's application. Its stated reason was that the density of the land-to-building ratio was too low. The church sued~ arguing the permit denial illegally burdened irs freedom of religion. DECISION: Judgment in favor of the church. The township could not justify its denial based on its interest in the density of the land-to-building ratio. And because the denial affected t~ow the church could carry on its services and classes, it burdened the church's freedom of religion. The township had already approved the church's 2000 proposal that had a © 2005 Cuinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 54