My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-20-99 CCM
LakeElmo
>
City Council
>
City Council - Final Meeting Minutes
>
1990's
>
1999
>
04-20-99 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2025 11:39:39 AM
Creation date
10/2/2019 8:42:42 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
DOHERTY <br />& B BT ER <br />PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION <br />City of Lake Elmo <br />April 20, 1999 <br />Page 11 <br />3) It is also clear that Lake Elmo does not have a compelling or overriding interest in the <br />Ordinance. To begin with, pursuant to the language of § 16 itself, only religious practices which are <br />licentious or inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state are unprotected. Ordinary worship, <br />community service, social services, and recreational activities trigger none of these concerns. Even <br />assuming they did, Lake Elmo's interest in enacting the PF-Ordinance, and in excluding churches <br />throughout the City, is not compelling. The record indicates that Lake Elmo's reason for these <br />restrictions, its interest in the PF-Ordinance, is to prohibit big churches, and to limit the amount of <br />tax-exempt land in the City. As discussed above, these interest are not compelling, and certainly do <br />not justify the burdens imposed by this ordinance on religious liberty. <br />4) Assuming, for argument, that Lake Elmo does have a compelling interest in the proposed <br />ordinance, and that religious worship in a large church is licentious or contrary to peace or safety, the <br />Ordinance as a whole, and the PF-Ordinance, are not the least restrictive means of accomplishing <br />those interests. The same discussion under the first amendment above, regarding narrow tailoring <br />of the ordinance, applies here. <br />In sum, the Minnesota Constitution provides far greater protection for religious practices than <br />the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The proposed PF-Ordinance is clearly <br />unconstitutional in Minnesota. <br />CONCLUSION <br />The Lake Elmo Zoning Ordinance and the PF-Ordinance are unconstitutional under both <br />federal and state standards. The steps which must be taken to meet minimal constitutional standards <br />are set forth above. The churches of Lake Elmo are prepared to work with the City to help it <br />accomplish its goals with respect to zoning, while providing constitutionally sufficient land use <br />opportunities within the City for church uses. <br />V truly yours, <br />Peter K. Beck <br />' U <br />Grego W Munson <br />MumoG 588883.1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.