04-20-99 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DOHERTY RUMBLE & BUTLER PROFESSIONAL. ASSOCIATION City of Lake Elmo April 20, 1999 Page 8 In Chub v. City of Chicago, 1996 WL 89241 (N.D. Ill. 1996), the court held that a zoning ordinance which renders it practically impossible to locate a suitable place for worship and congregation within the city may indeed create a substantial burden. Countless other cases have also stricken down zoning regulations which substantially interfere with religion. See e.g. Islamic Center of Mississippi V. Starkville, 840 F.2d 293 (5" Cir. 1988) (church allowed only by special permit in zone, even through permitted use in another residential zone); Englewood v. Apostolic Christian Church, 146 Col. 374, 362 P.2d 172 (1961) (church allowed only with special permit); Rogers V. Mayor &Aldermen of Atlanta, 110 Ga.App. 114, 137 S.E.2d 668 (1964) (church allowed only with special permit in residential *275 zone); Church of Christ v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals, 185 Ind.App. 346, 371 N.E.2d 1331 (1978); Mooney v. Orchard Lake, 333 Mich. 389, 53 N.W.2d 308 (1952); Congregational Temple Israel v. Creve Coeur, 320 S.W.2d 451, 456 (Mo. 1959) (exclusion from residential zones); Jehovah's Witnesses Assembly Hall v. Woolwich Township, 220 NTSuper. 381, 532 A.2d 276 (1987); Farhi v. Deal Borough Commissioners, 204 N.J.Super. 575, 499 A.2d 559 (1985); Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Board, 1 N.Y.2d 508, 522, 154 N.Y.S.2d 849, 136 N.E.2d 827 (1956) (churches cannot be excluded from a residential district); North Shore Unitarian Society v. Village of Plandome, 200 Misc. 524, 109 N.Y.S.2d 803 (1951); State ex rel. Synod of Ohio of United Lutheran Church v. Joseph, 139 Ohio St. 229, 39 N.W.2d 515 (1942) (church allowed in residential district only with special permit); Congregation Committee, North Fort Worth Congregation ofJehovah's Witnesses v. Haltom City, 287 S.W.2d 700 (Tex.Civ.App. 1956); State ex rel. Wenatchee Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v, Wenatchee, 50 Wash.2d 378, 312 P.2d 195 (1957) (special permit required for church in residential zone); see also Love Church v. Evanston, 671 F.Sup. 515 (N,D.111.) (1986), rev'd on other grounds, 896 F.2d 1082 (7`h Cir. 1990); 2 R. **1103 Anderson, American Law of Zoning (3d Ed.) § 12.22; 82 Am.Jur.2d, Zoning and Planning § 154, p. 639; annot. 74 A.L.R.2d 377. There is ample evidence in the record showing that the churches will be unable to accommodate the religious needs and activities of their respective congregations within the restrictions imposed by the proposed PF-Ordinance. The evidence further indicates that activities which have become central to modern religious beliefs, practices and worship will be curtailed. Because the zoning scheme substantially burdens religion, Lake Elmo must have a compelling interest for the regulation, and the regulation must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. A compelling interest must represent a "paramount interest". Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 406 (1963). It is an interest of the "highest order". Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 U.S. 205 (1972). Lake Elmo's purported interest in the restrictions imposed by the proposed PF-Ordinance is to limit the size of churches and the amount of tax-exempt land in the City. These are not compelling interests. Preservation of tax base has never been recognized as a compelling interest, and zoning and land use regulations have long been recognized as legitimate, and even important, but not compelling governmental interests. MUMOG 588383.1