Laserfiche WebLink
Not entircly. There are two difficur/tics ►vith upplving this basic proposition brit/rout <br /> qualification. First, persons have a constitutional right to the free exercise of their <br /> r cligioilc beliefs. Second,fear and distrust, particularly of minority religions, hits <br /> led to discrimination that oil occasion is reflected ill governmental larld use <br /> regulations. <br /> hi addition to basic constitutional protection. Congress enacted the Religious Land <br /> Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) to address this issue. It <br /> establishes cr general rule that a_oning or larldmar king regulation cannot impose(I <br /> substantial burden oil religious exercise (inchtding religious assembly) unless it is <br /> ill rtherarnce of a compelling governmental iriterest and is the least restrictive <br /> means of_fitr•therirlg that interest. <br /> The courts have.found that most general land Ilse regulations do not "subsiantialh• <br /> burden" religious exercise. The burden imposed must he more than call <br /> "inconvenience" or•something that increases the costs for the religious user. The <br /> hurden must he so significant that it renders the religious exercise effeCtll'c'11' <br /> impracticaL Courts find that it is not a substantial harden to require compliance <br /> with typical7onmg regulations. These inchide requirements to locate large places <br /> of assembly outside of residential areas. prohibitions of noncommercial or <br /> institutional Itses ill industrial or rede►elopment areas. Iinnits oil the size and heights <br /> of hurildings and signs.provision of adequate parking and huffers. and maintenance <br /> of hen nonv with existing nearby uses crud congruence !within historic districts. The <br /> cost and time taken to applv.for and go through the approval process (sitch as a <br /> r•e.:orlirTg or Special Ilse permit r•eyle►9') have like%-ise been held not to he a <br /> substantial burden. <br /> Conversely, however. where a city or county is shorn to he using its land use <br /> regIllation.s to deliberately fi•itstrate a religiots land use without appropriate <br /> justification. the courts will step ill. Multiple denials have prompted .judicial <br /> inter•1'ention, especial1v when mot4fications in the applications have been made to <br /> address concerns raised ill an initial review or►when each application produces new <br /> and iliconsistent jerstific•(itiorrs for the denials. Denials that are unsupported by <br /> shot~•ing anv legitimate land use impacts, especially►where the decision-maker seems <br /> to he ignoring relevant ,fhetucrl information, have also been invalidated. It is <br /> important to remember that if actual religious discrimination or unequal treatment <br /> of relig>ions is established, the action is illegal even if there is not it substantial <br /> hill-dell. <br /> When [considering Zoning district Ilse] regulations, he sure that thew leave <br /> reasonable alternatives al'ailable Jot religions expression. If von ►want to linnit <br /> location of all religious ruses in a redevelopment area or all industrial district, he <br /> .cure there are ample places elsewhere within the jurisdiction that these uses call he <br /> undertaken. This wets a key factor ill(!recent decision upholding Cout's prohibition <br /> of places of lvorship in cI.six-hloek commercial area, hint all(whkg,them elsewhere. <br /> Dixon v. Town of Coats. 2010 IVL 2347506 (E.D. N.C. June 9, 2010). Documenting <br /> that the availability ofalternative sites was thougbtfid1v considered prior to Working <br /> a decision can dc'fiue cr substantial burden issue. <br />