Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

(.-- Z.B. February 10, 2006 -- Page 3 NEW YORK (I2/19/05) -- Faith Temple Church wanted to expand to meet its gowing con~egation. It claimed that it needed a larger site to build a new church campus, senior housing, a school, and other facilities for faith-based programs. To carry out its plan, the church sought to buy a parcel a few miles from its ori~nal location. Tiffs parcel was mediately east of a town-owned park. The church announced it had executed a purchase contract for the parcel. The town, claiming it was surprised by the church's actions, announced its intention to condemn the parcel and annex it to the park. The church sued, arguing its purchase was protected by the Religious Land Use and Institutional, i.'zed Person Act. The Act provided that "no govern- ment shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden On the reli~ous exercise of a person." DECISION: Judgment in favor of town. The town's actions did not fall under the Act. Land-use regulations Limited the use of property. Condemnation was, in one sense, the ultimate limitation ora property's use. It did not follow, however, that condemnation was a land-nse regulation as the term was used in the Act. Con~ess could have included "takings" within the roach of the Act, but it did not. The town's actions may have had a relationship to land use, in the sense that the town intended that the parcel be used as public parkland, but the town's employment of eminent domain to obtain the land was simply too far removed from any zoning regulations to fall within the Act's purview. In most, if not all, condemnation proceedings, the government had to demon- strate that the purpose of the taking was to put the subject property to "pubLic use." Simply because condemnation and zoning both ultimately affected or restricted the use to which land was put did not make them synonymous. see also: United States v. 6.45 Acres of Land, 409 F. 3d 139 (2005). see also: Cottonwood Christian Center v. Cypress Development Agency, 218 F. Supp.2d 1203 (2002). Appeal-- Landowner sues before allowing township to make zoning decision Claims it doesn't have to for constitutional violations Citation: David E. Allen Inc. v. Charter Township of Lansing, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 263076 (2005) MICHIGAN (12/I5/05) -- David. E. Allen Inc. wanted to change the nature of its current business to a bikini bar, a totally nude establishment that did not serve alcohol, or an adult bookstore. To do so, Allen sued the Charter Township of Lansing, claiming it was constitutionally able to run such es- tablishments. © 2006 Quinlan Puelisning Group. Any reproOuctien is pmhit3aecl. For more information pIease call (61 ,D 542*0048. 141