Content area
Full Text
THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE and Institutionalized Persons Act1 ("RLUIPA") continues to generate numerous decisions across the nation. The two most frequently litigated issues involve the application of RLUIPA to historic preservation designations on buildings and the application of RLUIPA to economic development by local communities. While the contours of RLUIPA continue to be unclear, the cases discussed below will assist both religious entities and local governments in asserting and understanding the application of the statute to the issues they face.
I. Equal Terms and Substantial Burden Cases
In Young v. Jackson County,2 the court found an equal terms violation because a church use was permitted as of right within the urban growth boundary, but not permitted under the exclusive farm use designation. Plaintiffs' property was zoned "exclusive farm use" and located within three miles of an urban growth boundary.3 The plaintiffs wanted to operate a church within their existing dwelling, using the building as a primary dwelling with religious overnight stays.
The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs that the application of a three-mile radius denying a church use violated the equal terms prong of RLUIPA. In applying the equal terms analysis from Lighthouse* to the facts of the case, the court found that there were several other public and private assembly uses permitted within the exclusive farm use designation that were not farming and were assemblytype uses, including private clubs, golf courses, public buildings and museums. The court determined that under the Lighthouse "strict liability" equal terms analysis, because secular assembly was permitted and religious assembly was not, an equal terms violation was present.5
In River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest,6 one of the harshest religious land use cases for churches decided in 2009, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found for a municipality in an equal terms challenge. The church bought a warehouse in a service business district in the Village of Hazel Crest hoping to get a special exception for the use. Unfortunately, the ordinance did not provide for a special exception. After being denied occupancy of the building, the church sued and filed a motion for preliminary injunction to use the property in the interim, which the district court denied. The court...