Laserfiche WebLink
00 <br />LEAGUE OF <br />MINNESOTA <br />CITIES <br />INFORMATION MEMO <br />Zoning for Religion <br />When considering an application for land use involving a religious institution, cities must comply with <br />the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RL UIPA) law. Learn the <br />requirements of this law and read examples of provided by the U. S. Department of Justice of zoning <br />actions and ordinance language that can violate it. <br />RELEVANT LINKS <br />42 U.S.C. § 2000m et seq. <br />Employment Div., <br />Department of Human <br />Resources of Ore. V. Smith, <br />42 U.S. 110 S. Ct. 108 L.Ed. <br />2°" 876 (1990). <br />I. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized <br />Persons Act (RLUIPA) <br />While it probably isn't every day that your city receives a land use <br />application for a religious use, this is still an area of planning and zoning <br />cities need to pay attention to. The way your city handles applications for <br />religious uses must comply with the federal Religious Land Use and <br />Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). <br />RLUIPA protects religious institutions from unduly burdensome or <br />discriminatory land use regulations. This law was passed unanimously by <br />Congress in 2000, after congressional hearings revealed that religious <br />organizations were disproportionately affected by local land use decisions. <br />Minority religions and start-up churches were impacted more than most. <br />Congress also found that religious institutions were treated worse than <br />comparable secular institutions and that zoning authorities were placing <br />excessive burdens on the ability of congregations to exercise their faith. <br />As a result, Congress enacted RLUIPA in an effort to protect religious <br />freedom, houses of worship, and religious schools. However, 10 years after <br />it was passed, RLUIPA remains something of a mystery to those involved in <br />local land use regulation <br />11. Origins of RLUIPA <br />A 1990 Supreme Court decision was the first step toward RLUIPA. Smith <br />was fired as a drug counselor for ingesting peyote during a Native American <br />ceremony. He was denied unemployment insurance by the state of Oregon <br />because his termination was due to felony use of a controlled substance. The <br />Supreme Court upheld the denial because the state ban on peyote was <br />neutral and generally applicable. The Smith decision led to an outcry from <br />religious groups that the courts were inadequately protecting the religious <br />practice of individuals from the impact of government programs and <br />policies. <br />This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice wnceming specific situations. <br />145 University Ave. West v✓.w,.lmc.org 4/112010 <br />Saint Paul, MN 55103 -2044 (651) 281 -1200 or (800) 925 -1122 ® 2013 All Rights Reserved <br />