4 -CUP19-01; ME19-01_4405 W EDINGER

Home Browse Search

Conversely, courts have found no substantial burden violation when a church was denied the amount of off-street parking it would have preferred when there were reasonable parking alternatives available, when a religious high school was denied the ability to operate a commercial fitness center and dance studio out of a portion of its building, and when a church was barred from demolishing an adjacent landmarked building it had purchased in order to construct a family life center, as there was other space on the church’s campus that would be suitable. 10. RLUIPA contains a complicated description about when the “substantial burden” section will apply. Just when does the “substantial burden” test apply in a particular case? RLUIPA applies the substantial burden test to zoning or landmarking laws that have procedures in place under which the government makes “individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved.” By their nature, zoning or landmarking decisions typically involve such “individualized assessments.” Individualized assessments are present when the government looks at and considers the particular details of a proposed land use in deciding whether to permit or deny the use. It thus will cover most applications for variances, special use permits, special exceptions, rezoning requests, conditional use permits, zoning appeals, and similar applications for relief, since these all ordinarily involve the government reviewing the facts and making discretionary determinations whether to grant or reject an application. A denial of a building or occupancy permit based solely on a mechanical, objective basis with no discretion on the part of the decision maker would not be an individualized assessment and thus would not require the application of the substantial burden test. Practically, however, such purely “ministerial” situations are extremely rare in zoning disputes. Even if a zoning or landmarking case did not involve an individualized assessment, the substantial burden test still applies if the use at issue impacts interstate commerce, such as construction or expansion projects, or if there is federal funding involved. 11. What are examples of compelling interests that will permit local governments to impose substantial burdens on religious exercise? A government cannot impose a substantial burden on religious exercise unless it has a compelling governmental interest for doing so that is pursued through means that are the least restrictive of religious freedom possible. “Compelling interest” is a legal term meaning interests “of the highest order.” Government interests that are merely reasonably or even significantly important are insufficient. Courts have ruled that municipal interests in revenue generation, economic development or eliminating congestion, are not compelling. The burden of proving that an interest is compelling lies squarely on the local government. Examples of interests that may be compelling are those related to preserving public health and safety. For example, safety concerns relating to traffic can be compelling. 4-76