04-20-99 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION City of Lake Elmo April20, 1999 Page 7 fullest sense. This regulation impacts the churches free exercise, assembly and speech rights, and is subject to strict scrutiny. In Cornerstone Bible Church v. City of Hastings, 948 F.2d 464 (8" Cir. 1991), the City of Hastings sought to exclude churches from the central business zoning district in the city. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The Eighth Circuit reversed, based upon the hybrid rights claim of the church. The Eighth Circuit held that because the church had viable free speech, freedom of association, and equal protection claims, the churches free exercise claim based on hybrid rights was colorable as a matter of law. The Eighth Circuit stated that in asserting both that the law directly regulated religion, and that it triggered "hybrid rights", "The church's claims thus follow the two remaining paths for advancing a free exercise claim." Id When hybrid rights are triggered, the ordinance in question is subject to strict scrutiny. Under a strict scrutiny analysis, the court must determine whether the law substantially burdens religion. If so, there must be a compelling state interest supporting the regulation, the regulation must be narrowly tailored to address that interest, and the regulation must be the least restrictive means of doing so. See generally, Smith. In the present case, it must be determined whether Lake Elmo's Ordinance places a substantial burden on religion. A "substantial burden" has been defined as follows: "In order to be considered a substantial burden, the governmental action must significantly inhibit or constrain conduct or expression that manifests some central tenet of a person's individual religious beliefs, must meaningfully curtail a person's ability to express adherence to his or her faith; or must deny a person reasonable opportunities to engage in those activities that are fundamental to a person's religion". Weir v. Nix, 114 F.3d 820 (8`h Cir. 1997). Lake Elmo's Zoning Ordinance, coupled with the proposed PF-Ordinance, clearly place a substantial burden on religion. Churches are not a permitted use anywhere in the City. Existing churches may continue in existence without expanding, but no new churches can be developed without legislative approval from the City Council. Even if this approval could be obtained, the restrictions of the ordinance make it impossible to build a new church. Clearly the unavailability of a common house of worship within the City of Lake Elmo places a substantial burden on religion. It cannot be contested that worship is a fundamental tenet of churches. Additionally, the severe size restrictions on new churches, and the inability of existing churches to meaningfully expand, will hinder other important aspects of religious exercise. For example, under the proposed PF-Ordinance, a church would not have enough room to construct an adequate sanctuary space, let alone suitable classrooms, recreational facilities, counseling facilities, and other facilities which all serve a vital function in the exercise of ones religion. MumoC 588883.1