Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

January 10, 2006-- Page 3 eight parcels of land to build an assisted living center for elderly and disabled people. To complete the project, the church requested rezoning the parcels from single-family residential to mulfifarnily residential. The city denied the request, f'mding that the project would be incompatible with its development plans. The church sued, arguing that the denial burdened its religious freedom because providing for the elderly and disabled was central to its religious practice. The court ruled in its favor. The city appealed, claiming that the planned development would add to traffic, blight, and urban sprawl. DECISION: 3ffirmed. The church was entitled to the rezoning. Because the use of land for the purpose of religious exercise was defined as religious exercise, the city's denial of the use of the property as an apartment complex for elderly and disabled persons, as part of the church's religious mission, constituted a substantial burden on religion. Providing housing and services to the community was not only part of the church's mission as a church, but also it was central to its religious fa/th. The church could not afford to purchase a different property, and it would lose over $150,000 in investment on the eight parcels if it could not provide housing on its property. Moreover, because of services the church provided to the elderly, it was necessary for the apartment complex to be in close proximity to the church; thus, moving the project to another site would impose a substantial burden on the church. FinaLly, there was no available rnnitifam/ly residential property nearby. Therefore, the government's denial would, in effect, compel inaction with respect to the church's sincerely held religious belief. This, was an tmconstitu- tional burden on religion, and could not be justified by concern over traffic, blight, or urban sprawl. see also: Shepherd Montessori Center Milan v. Ann Arbor Charter Township, 675 N.W.2d 271 (2004). see also: EIsinore Christian Center v. City of La!ce Elsinore, 291 ESupp.2d 1083 (2003). Notice-- Abutter never receives notice of planned teleconununicafions tower Lower court finds it's too late to challenge decision Citation: Kramer v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Somerville, Appeals Court of Massachusetts, No. 04-P-293 (2005) MASSACHUSETTS (11/29/05) --The Zoning Board of Appeals of Somerville approved a special permit allowing Nextel Communications to construct a wu-e- less antenna facility on the roof of an apartment building. © 2006 (~ulntan PuD sh~ng Group. Any reproOuction is proi~ibitecl. For more information please carl (617) 542-00tm. 125