2-6-2023 BOC Regular Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

Staff also looked into some of the case law as examples of how this law has been applied to other towns and cities. The first example is from a 2010 case, Dixon v. Town of Coats,2010 WL 2347506(E.D.N.C. June 9. 2010). wherein the Town of Coats withstood a RLUIPA challenge. In this case, the Plaintiff owned a small building in downtown Coats that had previously been used for various retail uses, a residence, and a church. The town rezoned the entire six-block downtown areas to a"Mixed Use Village District." Churches were not a permitted use in the district. At the time of the rezoning plaintiffs structure had been vacant several months. Some six months later the plaintiff leased the building to a person who proposed using it for a church. The town informed the tenant that the use was not permitted and that prior church use did not have nonconforining status as that use had been discontinued more than ninety days. Nonetheless, the town allowed the tenant to open a church on site, but advised them this was a "one time"approval and once the church closed.another religious use would not be approved. The church operated briefly, closed, and the plaintiff then leased the property to another church. The town staff denied zoning approval and the denial was upheld by the Board of Adjustment. The court first held the plaintiff had standing to bring a claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act even though he had not made nor proposed to make any personal religious use of the site. The Plaintiffs potential financial loss as a lessor prohibited from leasing to a religious user of his property was sufficient to establish standing. The court dismissed his ..equal terms"claim, however, as the plaintiff was not a religious assembly or institution. The court held the exclusion of places of worship from a relatively small area was not a "substantial burden" as it did not render religious exercise effectively impractical within the town as a whole. The town withstood the legal challenge. The next two examples illustrate communities that lost a RLUIPA challenge. Lighthouse Institittc.for Ewingelism v. Of'v o/'Long Branch, 510 F3d 253 (3rd Cir 2007), cert den 128 S Ct 2503. 171 L Ed 2d 787 (2008),the zoning ordinance for a downtown commercial district permitted a variety of uses. includine an "assembly hall," but did not hermit churches. The Third Circuit construed the equal terms provision at 42 USC 2000cc-(b)(1) to require that a person asserting a claim under the equal teens provisions must show (1) it is a religious assembly or institution, (2) subject to a land use regulation, which regulation (3) treats the religious assembly on less than equal terms with(4)nonreligious assembly or institution(5)that causes no lesser harm to the interests the regulation seeks to advance. 510 F3d at 270. The Court found that "it is not apparent from the allowed uses why a church would cause greater harm to regulatory objectives than an 'assembly hall' that could be used for unspecified meetings[,]" and concluded that the zoning code violated the equal terms provision. Id. at 272. The town failed the RUILPA challenge. Mid-ash Sephardi. Inc. v. Town ofSnrfcide. 366 F3d 1214 11 (1 1 th Cir 2004), the zoning scheme prohibited churches and synagogues within a business district. but permitted "private clubs." among other similar secular uses. The Eleventh Circuit found that private clubs and other non- reli(,ious uses allowed in the zone were "assemblies" for purposes of RLUIPA. and that the prohibition on churches and synagogues violated the equal terms provision. Again,the town failed the RUILPA challenge.