CC_Minutes_2023_0306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,March 6, 2023 Page 12 regulations have to be narrowly tailored to accommodate the church's reli- gious exercise. That is a serious obligation that he has not heard much of from the Board tonight. They want it to be very clear that they understand those are the church's rights and in sixty days if the City tells the church that they have to move these, that is not something that the church is nearly pre- pared to concede tonight. He doubted the church will be able to concede that in sixty days. Chair Roe thanked the church and representative for their comments. He noted that the Federal Law was not brought up other than in the written materials provided as a part of the case,but he wanted to check with the City Attorney, in a broad sense, where the City stands in regard to that Federal Statute. He believed the City was applying the Code evenly and fairly and not in a discriminatory manner towards religious institutions. City Attorney Tierney explained the Religious Land Use and Institutional- ized Persons Act also known as RLUIPA, always applies when a Govern- ment is taking action involving land use against a church. It has to be in their minds when they are looking at any regulation of land use that applies to a church certainly applies here. What is not before the City Council is some sort of a land use application that the Council has been able to interpret and apply different facts to. The church put this on the property without making any land use applications. The church did not give the City the tool that is needed in order to look at this factually and determine whether this could be allowed under certain conditions. The homes were just put there without the City's knowledge. There is always a risk of the church choosing to file a lawsuit over religious land use. That could happen and the City will deal with that if it happens. Based on the facts and what is in front of the City Council, she was comfortable with what the Board is considering. Chair Roe asked where the Board was at in terms of proceeding with this because ultimately based on their decisions this evening, with respect to the particular appeal,the enforcement is that once again the non-compliant units can no longer be used as housing either at some point in the near future or at some point further from there depending on what the Board ultimately di- rects staff this evening in terms of enforcement. Board member Strahan indicated if indeed this group has no interest and has no plans to work with the City and remove the homes,if the City gives them a sixty day grace period where the City stays enforcement, she was not cer- tain why the City would not move toward a ten day removal if the church does not plan to work with the City. She also wondered why the church continues to be able to rebut because this is generally not an ongoing con- versation.