Here are some recent developments in the application of RLUIPA in land use cases:
In City and County of Honolulu v. Sherman (Feb. 28, 2006), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that a Hawaii statute (R.O.H. Ch. 38) that permits the city and county to file eminent domain proceedings to convert properties from leaseholds to fee simple ownership is not subject to RLUIPA because the law is neither a zoning nor a landmarking law. Therefore it does not constitute a "land use regulation" as RLUIPA defines the term.
The Associated Press reports that on Friday, a federal district judge released an opinion holding that RLUIPA prevents the Village of Mamaroneck in New York from using its zoning laws to block construction of a new 44,000 square-foot building by the Westchester Jewish Day School. The zoning board had raised issues of traffic, parking, esthetics and property values in denying the application to build the school in Mamaroneck's upscale Orienta Point neighborhood. Judge William Conner said that the board's denial, in 2001, "was so contrary to the evidence and to the equities as to be arbitrary and capricious." However, the judge stayed his order pending an appeal to the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The long history of the case is traced by this coverage of Friday's decision by the Westchester Journal News. UPDATE: The lengthy opinion is now available on LEXIS, Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9058 (SDNY, March 2, 2006).
A recently published article reviews RLUIPA land use developments: Edwin P. Voss, Jr. & Meredith A. Ladd, Recent Developments Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 37 Urban Lawyer 449-466 (2005). [Thanks to SmartCILP]
