Look at what I found at : http://religionclause.blogspot.com/
7th Circuit Rejects Church's Land Use Claims Yesterday in Vision Church, United Methodist v. Village of Long Grove, (7th Cir., Nov. 7, 2006), the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Free Expression, Free Exercise and RLUIPA challenges to a requirement that churches need to obtain special use permits to locate in Long Grove, Illinois. It also rejected the church's argument that the village's regulations violate the Establishment Clause by favoring existing religious institutions over new ones. It held that the involuntary annexation of Vision Church's land was not a land use regulation covered by RLUIPA, "and that size restrictions imposed on the church did not substantially burden its exercise of religion. " It rejected constitutional and statutory claims of unequal treatment and Vision Church's claim that it had a vested right to build under pre-existing zoning rules.
Thanks for the find. This and other cases show that there's a good chance that a judge will find the town's conditions to not substantially burden CC. As I said before, religion is not a carte blanche escuse to disregard reasonable limitations. Let's hope the PB sticks to their guns. It's nice to see the daily record weighing in on this issue in favor of the town as well.
One thing everyone is forgetting in this case. There is currently no church at 140 GPR. The church is in Montclair. So where is the burden? Last time I checked CC's website, seemed everything was humming along fine. No one is getting turned away.
Restrictions were put in place to control development of a proposed mega church based on information provided to the planning board during testimony. The leader of this proposed church said he has 5000 members and not all attend services on a weekly basis. He also said he has no projection for growth. I believe there was other information provided on usage and events, while the "rev" was trying to downplay the IMPACT.
The PB did a good job balancing saftey, traffic, and the environment while supporting the needs of CC based on Irelands own testimony. RT has a rock solid case that will hold up in court.
I did not realize that the cc issue here in town was one in which "involuntary annexation" was used. What am I missing here, folks? How does this ruling apply to us?
And the operative language in RLUIPA is:
"No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, asssembly or institution -
- - -
- is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
The emphasis should be on "the least restrictive means".
-----------------------
I contend that "the least restrictive means" of furthering that governmental interest of traffic flow and safety would involve the widening of GPR to 4 lanes to accomodate the circus traffic. I suspect that the courts will also see it that way. I believe that Morris Country has already seen it that way if the rumors that I have heard are correct.
ED is not covered in RLUIPA. Bloated Senator Ted Kennedy was floating the idea to include it back in the Spring. Not sure if it got any traction though. The town needs to keep close tabs on that.
Check out Marci Hamilton's website. I think thats where I saw a story on this.
I am not too surprised that it is not. After all, ED has been around for a few hundred years now and well tested. It would be difficult for a new law like RLUIPA to be set up to trump ED.
But -
With guys like "The Swimmer" around, he might eventually figure out a way to float that into the RLUIPA law.
That is all the more reason to consider using ED now, before RLUIPA is proped up to include ED related issues.
"and that size restrictions imposed on the church did not substantially burden its exercise of religion. " 
It rejected constitutional and statutory claims of unequal treatment and Vision Church's claim that it had a vested right to build under pre-existing zoning rules.
