In Friends of First United Methodist Church v. City of Seattle, (Nov. 21, 2005), a Washington state Court of Appeals rejected efforts of "Friends", a group that was attempting to prevent First United Methodist Church from demolishing its sanctuary and erecting an office tower and new adjoining sanctuary in its place. Friends claimed the downtown church sanctuary was historic and that under the State Environmental Policy Act, the church should have considered alternatives that did not involve its destruction. However, the court held that Seattle cannot burden the church's right to free exercise by preventing it from demolishing its sanctuary for landmark preservation purposes. Because landmark preservation is not a compelling interest, it cannot be used to justify action that has a coercive effect on the church's practice of religion. Since that is the case, the city cannot use requirements for an environmental impact statement to force the church to consider alternatives that cannot be enforced against it.
The Newtown, Conn. Bee reported yesterday on a Nov. 18 decision by the Danbury, Conn. Superior Court rejecting a Buddhist Temple's challenge to a 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission decision. The Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut had sought to develop 10 acres of property it owns in a residential area with a temple and meeting hall. P&Z members in had unanimously rejected the proposal because it would increased traffic and noise, and would be "far too intense for this particular site." The Buddhist Society appealed the rejection, alleging that it violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and Connecticut's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. However the court disagreed, finding that: "The society's claim alleging a violation of the equal protection clause is unavailing because the court finds no evidence of selective treatment. The court further finds the society has neither established a 'substantial burden' nor a 'burden' on religious exercise sufficient to meet its prerequisite burden for a [religious freedom] claim...." UPDATE: The opinion is Cambodian Buddhist Society of CT, Inc. v. Newtown Planning & Zoning Commn., 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3158 (Nov. 18, 2005).
