06-10-24-SWS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 231246v1 At the same time, even under the challenging “compelling governmental interest” standard, RLUIPA does not leave a city powerless to exercise zoning authority. In fact, as interpreted by Federal Courts, under RLUIPA, a substantial burden is more than “requiring a religious institution to use feasible alternative locations for religious exercise.”4 In other words, a city is not automatically required to allow a religious user to locate anywhere the entity chooses, including a location that is more convenient for the religious entity.5 Similar to the use in this Application, in one case, the Federal Sixth Circuit found that a Christian school was not substantially burdened by the denial of a special-use permit to relocate its school to a new, more convenient location because the school could still carry out its religious mission at its current location.6 For a regulation to be a substantial burden, there must be a “close nexus” between the use that is regulated and the religious entity’s religious exercise.7 One court offered the example of “a situation where a school could easily rearrange existing classrooms to meet its religious needs in the face of a rejected application to renovate. In such case, the denial would not substantially threaten the institution’s religious exercise, and there would be no substantial burden, even though the school was refused the opportunity to expand its facilities.”8 It is worth noting that a burden can be “substantial” without being insurmountable.9 If a school “has no ready alternatives, or where the alternatives require substantial ‘delay, uncertainty, and expense,’ a complete denial of the school’s application might be indicative of a substantial burden.”10 Accordingly, as mentioned above, denying a re-zoning application is not without some potential legal risk. B. Equal Terms. One other noteworthy consideration: a city is not allowed to impose a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly. With this Application, this means that if other types of assemblies are allowed in the I-1 district, then this applicant could pose a legal challenge on this basis. Conclusion Although the City is not specifically required to allow religious uses in every zoning district throughout the City, the requirements of RLUIPA are significant. As this application proceeds through the City’s review process, further legal analysis will be required before the City Council makes its final decisions. 4 Marianist Province of the United States v. City of Kirkwood, 944 F.3d 996, 1001 (8th Cir. 2019). 5 Id. 6 Id., citing, Livingston Christian Sch. v. Genoa Charter Twp., 858 F.3d 996, 1007-09 (6th Cir. 2017). 7 Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck, 504 F.3d 338, 352-53 (2d Cir.2007). 8 Id. 9 Id., citing, Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. v. City of New Berlin, 396 F.3d 895, 901 (7th Cir. 2005). 10 Id., quoting, Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. v. City of New Berlin, supra.