Appeals court rules in favor of West Linn in Mormon church case
The Oregon Court of Appeals says the city didn't violate federal law when it denied a church's plan to build a meeting hall
03/25/04
LISA GRACE LEDNICER
WEST LINN -- The city didn't violate federal law when it denied a Mormon church's plan to build a meeting house in a residential area, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.
The opinion said West Linn may have inconvenienced the church by rejecting its proposal to construct a 16,500-square-foot meeting house. But that decision didn't interfere with the church's constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom, the court ruled.
West Linn's city attorney called the ruling a victory for Oregon's land-use law.
An attorney for the church said a decision hasn't been made on whether to appeal.
Lawyers for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had argued that the city broke a federal law that says local land-use regulations can't impose a "substantial burden" on the exercise of religion.
The church wants to build a meeting house on 3.85 acres off Rosemont Road with a 68-foot-tall steeple and a 179-space parking lot.
The lot, zoned for residential use, is vacant except for a small house. The West Linn City Council turned down the proposal, saying the site was too small and would generate too much traffic, light and noise.
Church attorneys said the church had looked hard for land on which to build a new meeting house. The church offered to reduce the impact on surrounding homes by building earthen berms around the edge of the lot, keeping as many trees as possible and asking church members to avoid driving through the neighborhood.
The church appealed to the state Land Use Board of Appeals, which said the city failed to address the 2000 law, called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
The Court of Appeals decision reverses the land use board's ruling. The judges accepted the city's argument that the church faces only the hardship of re-designing the building, not of being forbidden to build altogether.
"Nothing in the city's order indicates it would not approve an application that met the stated concerns, either by proposing the same building and parking lot on a larger parcel or by modifying the design to suit its location," the judges said.
"The burden imposed on the church in this case is the burden of being prevented from implementing the particular design proposal at issue."
The court didn't rule on the constitutionality of the federal law because the judges determined that the city hadn't violated the law's provisions and the city would be willing to consider an amended application from the church.
City attorney Tim Ramis called the ruling a victory for land-use law in Oregon. Since Congress passed the federal law, he said, many local governments have assumed they'd have to approve building applications from churches automatically, even if those applications violated land-use laws.
"The big question at the local government levels has been, 'Are churches entitled to separate and better treatment than other applicants?' " he said. "This is a vindication for those who are supportive of Oregon's land-use system, particularly those who feel all users should be treated equally."
Frank Hunsaker, the church's attorney, said the church would "consider all options," including appealing the ruling to the Oregon Supreme Court.
"We're obviously disappointed," he said. "We believe there was a substantial burden, and we think the decision is incorrect.'
A handful of similar cases are winding their way through court systems around the country. In Oregon, a Molalla nondenomination Christian congregation wants to build a church on 10 acres of farmland along Oregon 213 outside the city limits. The proposal to construct the building on prime farmland is headed to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
And a Salem church is suing the city in U.S. District Court in Eugene after being refused a zoning exception to allow the church to expand in an area where religious institutions aren't allowed.
Very intersesting...perhaps us insignificant little people (as RUPILA would suggest) do have a say in what is and is not approriate use for land with our Township.
I mean, if CC is currently maintaining it's spiritual message within the confines of a 25,000sq foot Church, then perhaps our board may not be out of line to interpret that 450,000 may be a bit much for the property, while not infringing upon anyones right to worship.
I couldn't help but notice that the land is set in a residential area, the only changes requested are in design.
I'm not a lawyer but neither situation seems to apply to the Agilent site. The RT site is not zoned residential and CC has offered to adjust their designs as needed but vORT et al scoffs at the offers. So it seems design changes are not the real reason for community opposition.
Are you really that much smarter than the rest of us sheople here in town? We will all have a vote on the referrendum, I know what yours will be...how many will vote with you beside rUSS?
quote: Originally posted by: To tED "Are you really that much smarter than the rest of us sheople here in town? We will all have a vote on the referrendum, I know what yours will be...how many will vote with you beside rUSS?"
You don't get to vote on whether or not there is an eminent domain struggle. That's in the hands of the BOE you also don't get a say on the Open space offer to the BOE from the township
quote: Originally posted by: To tED "Of course we do note vote on those things tED - we will be presented with a referrendum at the end of the process by the school board. It will be interesting to see how the town votes on the proposal the board will present us with."
Yes but that will not effect the process of eminent domain. That process begins (per Jim Turttletaub - Land use atty) with the initial offer by the BOE. If the BOE's initial offer is turned down (it most certainly will be per Turtletaub), litigation begins 14 days after the initial offer. Therefore, You won't have a choice. The land will cost millions (its commercial value per Turtletaub) and if you get the land we'll most certainly spend millions more for the school
The cost of the land and building should be more than offset by the savings in renovating vs. building new. Also the state reimburses 40% for renovations but only 25% for new construction. The property is centrally located and has more room for expansion than the other two alternatives. It will make a wonderful school location.
quote: Originally posted by: rockres23yrs "The cost of the land and building should be more than offset by the savings in renovating vs. building new. Also the state reimburses 40% for renovations but only 25% for new construction. The property is centrally located and has more room for expansion than the other two alternatives. It will make a wonderful school location."
Renovation present serveral problems. They were mentioned on the 24th.
support columns are necessary. Some of which will included in classroom areas (the columns were shown on the rendrings)
There will be several classrooms without windows
Even if the BOE is okay with that situation (and I don't think yhey will be), Parents will balk. I don't think renovation will be an option
But that was only ONE way it could be if the board decides to only take the 40 acres in that drawing...yes it would leave part of the building facing the other part of the property that would not be taken.
Do not fool yourself for one minute - they will make an offer on the whole property, the slicing up will come later.
