Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ouestion for the Court: <br /> <br />In order for a municipality to extend the 6o-day time limit, does the municipality need <br />extenuating circumstances? <br /> <br />The Court's Answer: <br /> <br />No. The statute does not limit a municipality's ability to grant itself an extension of the <br />60-day time limit to "extenuating circumstances." Rather, the statute merely requires a <br />municipality to provide written notice of the extension to the applicant stating the reasons <br />for the extension. <br /> <br />RECAP - Four Steps to Extend the 60-Day Time Limit: <br /> <br />a. Written notice of the extension; <br />b. given before the expiration of the deadline; <br />c. stating the reasons for the extension; and <br />d. indicating the anticipated length of the extension. <br /> <br />RECENT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES INVOLVING LAND USE ISSUES <br /> <br />Federal <br /> <br />The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. "RLUIP A". <br /> <br />Signed into law by President Clinton on September 27,2000, RLUIP A contains two types of <br />prohibitions regarding land use decisions by municipalities. One, the Act precludes the <br />complete prohibition ofland use regulations that: discriminate against any religious assembly <br />or institution on the basis of religion; place unreasonable limits on religious assemblies, <br />institutions or structure; or those which completely exclude religious assemblies from a <br />jurisdiction. <br /> <br />Second, the Act provides that: <br /> <br />No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes <br />a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly <br />or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of that burden on that <br />person, assembly or institution. <br /> <br />(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and <br />3 <br />