A federal court in Michigan has ruled that Genoa Charter Township did not violate federal law in denying a church’s application for a special use permit to operate a religious school.  Livingston Christian Schools (LSC) sought to use property owned by another church, Brighton Church of the Nazarene (Nazarene Church), for its religious school.  LSC had been operating its pre-kindergarten through 12th grade Christian school in Pinckney, Michigan, but insisted that it had to relocate to meet its growing enrollment, academic objectives, and mission to serve Livingston County.  The Nazarene Church property sits on 16.5 acres and has a Christian education center, a sanctuary, offices, a recreational facility and a residential parsonage.  Our prior post regarding LSC’s complaint is available here.

LSC entered into a five-year lease with the Nazarene Church and prepaid $70,000 in rent, with the intent to relocate to the property for the 2015-2016 school year.  At the same time, LSC agreed to lease the Pinckney property, which it formerly used to run its religious to school, to a charter school for $5,000 per month.

After the Township heard of LSC’s plan to relocate, it advised the Nazarene Church that a special use permit would be needed for LSC’s use.  In March 2015, the Nazarene Church applied for an amendment to the existing special use permit to allow LSC’s use of the property as a religious school.  Neighbors objected that the new use would adversely impact traffic and also complained that the Nazarene Church had failed to comply with conditions in its existing special use permit.  The Township’s Planning Commission recommended that the Township Board of Trustees approve the application for the amendment, but the Board denied the application on July 20, 2015 by a 4-3 vote for several reasons, including: (a) negative impacts on the adjacent neighborhood; (b) inconsistencies with the Master Plan; (c) traffic concerns; and (d) the Nazarene Church’s history of noncompliance with the conditions of its special use permit.

LSC alleged that the Township’s actions violated the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act’s (RLUIPA) substantial burden provision, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process protection.

In addressing LSC’s RLUIPA claim, the court noted the substantial burden test in the Sixth Circuit: the government must place substantial pressure on the religious group to violate its religious beliefs or effectively bar the religious group from using its property in the exercise of its religion.  The court rejected LSC’s substantial burden claim, because LSC has not “proffered evidence showing that it cannot carry out its church mission and ministries due to the Township’s denial.”  Specifically, LSC could have used the Pinckney location to continue with its desired use and in fact found another location at Whitmore Lake to operate for the 2015-2016 school year.  In other words, LSC had available to it ready alternatives to ensure its continued religious exercise.

The court rejected LSC’s First Amendment Free Exercise claim for two reasons.  Under Sixth Circuit precedent, a religious group must show that the desired religious use at a particular location is a “fundamental tenet” of the religious group’s faith.  Here, there was no evidence that operating the religious school from the Nazarene Church property was a fundamental tenet of LSC’s religion.  The claim also failed because the court found that the Township had simply applied a neutral law of general applicability and there was no evidence of religious discrimination.

The Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim failed because LSC had no protected property interest.  That is, LSC could not prove that the ordinance at issue required the Township to grant its application for a special use permit, since the Township had discretion to deny the application.

The decision in Livingston Christian Schools v. Genoa Charter Township (E.D. MI 2016) is available here.

Print:
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn
Photo of Evan Seeman Evan Seeman

Evan J. Seeman is a lawyer in Robinson+Cole’s Hartford office and focuses his practice on land use, real estate, environmental, and regulatory matters, representing local governments, developers and advocacy groups. He has spoken and written about RLUIPA, and was a lead author of…

Evan J. Seeman is a lawyer in Robinson+Cole’s Hartford office and focuses his practice on land use, real estate, environmental, and regulatory matters, representing local governments, developers and advocacy groups. He has spoken and written about RLUIPA, and was a lead author of an amicus curiae brief at the petition stage before the United States Supreme Court in a RLUIPA case entitled City of San Leandro v. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.

Evan serves as the Secretary/Treasurer of the APA’s Planning & Law Division. He also serves as the Chair of the Planning & Zoning Section of the Connecticut Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Section, and is the former Co-Chair of its Municipal Law Section. He has been named to the Connecticut Super Lawyers® list as a Rising Star in the area of Land Use Law for 2013 and 2014. He received his B.A. in political science and Russian studies (with honors) from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, where he was selected as the President’s Fellow in the Department of Modern Languages and Literature. Evan received his Juris Doctor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, where he served on the Connecticut Law Review. While in law school, he interned with the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General in the environmental department, and served as a judicial intern for the judges of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court. Following law school, Evan clerked for the Honorable F. Herbert Gruendel of the Connecticut Appellate Court.

Photo of Karla Chaffee Karla Chaffee

Karla L. Chaffee is a member of Robinson+Cole’s Real Estate + Development Group and is based in the Boston office, focusing on a variety of land use and environmental matters. Karla’s interest in RLUIPA began in law school when she co-authored, “Six

Karla L. Chaffee is a member of Robinson+Cole’s Real Estate + Development Group and is based in the Boston office, focusing on a variety of land use and environmental matters. Karla’s interest in RLUIPA began in law school when she co-authored, “Six Fact Patterns of Substantial Burden in RLUIPA: Lessons for Potential Litigants,” (with Dwight Merriam) published in Albany Government Law Review (Spring 2009). Karla has continued to write and speak on RLUIPA and has represented clients in several federal proceedings, including RLUIPA, First Amendment, and Equal Protection claims. In addition to her RLUIPA practice, Karla has litigated complex environmental matters, defending claims under Massachusetts Chapter 21E. Karla’s transactional experience includes pre-acquisition and pre-financing due diligence, environmental risk assessment and risk mitigation. She also represents clients seeking local zoning approvals and counsels them on the impact of proposed or recently enacted land use legislation, as well as on land use trends across the country.

Karla is also a proud member of Robinson+Cole’s Pro Bono Committee and is dedicated to maintaining pro bono work as part of her practice. Her pro bono clients include individuals and families seeking asylum in the United States. She has also represented nonprofit organizations in obtaining tax-exempt status and has served as legal counsel in a zoning appeal for a nonprofit association created to support and protect a national park.