We at ADF often are asked what legal issues should most concern churches.  And we make it a practice to ask the many pastors around the country we represent and interact with what they are most concerned about. Based on those experiences, I have compiled a top ten list of sorts that I will be blogging about for the next couple of weeks.  The top concern will be listed first, and is the subject of today’s post.

Land Use – We are seeing a marked increase in the number of churches contacting us because local officials have made it difficult, if not impossible, to build a new facility or expand their current one.  Church use of land is often treated as poorly as sexually oriented businesses.  ADF has already had to file five of these cases this year.  One of those, Palm Beach Gardens Baptist Church v. City of Port St. Lucie, involves three small churches that have been told by the city they cannot locate in a shopping center where private clubs and day care centers are welcome.  The best way for churches to combat this discrimination is first to educate themselves and zoning officials on the law and not just assume the city is acting in compliance with it.  A good place to start is our resource, “Land Use FAQ” on the resource page of speakupmovement.org/church.  If the government officials insist on treating churches less favorably than secular assemblies, the church should contact us, and consider filing a lawsuit to protect their rights as well as those of other churches in the area.

Check back soon for the #2 issue – Property Taxes.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”  Those timeless words from Charles Dickens’ classic A Tale of Two Cities many times describe the turning points in a church’s history.  This is especially true for two churches in Georgia – All Souls Church of God in Christ and Holiness is the Way Ministries.  Both of these churches are young start-ups in the greater Atlanta area.  They both currently meet in storefronts and both have about 40-50 members.  They are both growing and reaching their community for Christ.  In many ways, this is the best of times for these churches, where growth and excitement are tangible realities.

Yet both of these churches are facing what some would call the “worst of times” as well.  Faced with growing congregations and a desire to move out into the community, the churches each purchased property in Coweta County, Georgia.  All Souls purchased 5 acres and made plans to build a church building with a fellowship hall.  Holiness is the Way put a contract on 10 acres of property and planned to build a church with a gymnasium for the church and community youth.  Both properties, as you can see, are undeveloped properties that are perfect for church buildings.

All Souls purchased its property in 2008 and was the first to apply to Coweta County for zoning approval.  The zoning for the property allowed churches as a conditional use, which meant that All Souls needed to apply to the County for approval to build a church.  The County’s professional zoning staff reviewed the application and found that the Church met all the objective requirements of the zoning code.  The County Planner recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the application and allow All Souls to build its church.  In early 2010, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to decide All Souls’ application.  After several neighbors surrounding the property voiced opposition to All Souls’ new church (none of the reasons given by the neighbors were valid), the Board voted 3-2 to deny the application.  The Board never publicly stated why it voted to deny the application.  It never gave any objective reason for its denial and did not point to any specific zoning requirement that All Souls did not meet.

Fast forward to Spring, 2010.  Holiness is the Way applied to the County for zoning permission to build its church.  The County’s professional zoning staff reviewed the application and, like they did in the All Souls case, found that Holiness is the Way met all the objective zoning requirements.  The County Planner recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve Holiness is the Way’s application to build its church.  In June, 2010, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on Holiness is the Way’s application.  Similar to All Souls, neighbors surrounding the church property voiced opposition to having a church on the property.  They claimed that a church would lower property values, would generate too much traffic (even though none of the neighbors’ driveways accessed the road where the church was located), and, amazingly, that the gymnasium for the church and the youth in the community would generate crime.  The Board voted 3-1 to deny Holiness is the Way’s application.  Again, the Board gave no reason for its decision and did not point to any objective zoning requirement that Holiness is the Way failed to meet.

ADF filed a lawsuit on behalf of All Souls in January, 2011, and just this month filed a lawsuit against the County on behalf of Holiness is the Way.  In the course of preparing the lawsuit, we uncovered serious constitutional and statutory violations on the part of the County.

• The County has routinely approved churches in the same zoning jurisdiction as the properties owned by All Souls and contracted for by Holiness is the Way.  Yet these two churches were denied the same zoning approval given to other churches – and were denied for no objective reason.
• The County has approved secular assembly uses in the same zoning jurisdiction as the churches that are functionally and characteristically indistinguishable from the activities of a church.
• The factors listed in the County zoning code for deciding whether a Church should be granted a zoning permit have been found unconstitutional by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which governs Georgia.

These issues are concerning enough.  But on top of these things, the County’s refusal to point to any objective reason why the churches were denied zoning approval is flat out unconstitutional.  Churches cannot be subjected to the political or subjective whims of zoning boards that hold the power of approval over whether a church can build on its property.

These cases typify why ADF exists and why the ADF Church Project was created.  We want to stand together with the church to allow the ministry of the church to proceed unhindered.  If you are facing a similar situation to All Souls and Holiness is the Way, call ADF today at (800) TELL-ADF.  Our team of attorneys will evaluate your situation to see if there is something we can do to help.

Standing together, we know that God can take the “worst of times,” and turn them into the “best of times” for His glory and His purposes. (Rom. 8:28).

One would think that in America we have the freedom to practice our faith, the freedom to speak, and the freedom to associate with those with whom we want to associate.  Those freedoms are being challenged in Medina, Minnesota. 

Let me give you a little context.  About fifteen years ago, Woodridge Church purchased 20 acres of land and built a church.  Since then, it has added 8 acres.  So in a rural part of this Minneapolis, Minnesota suburb sits this church on 28 acres of land. 

The Lord blessed this Church, and it is now ministering to over 1,000 congregants.  Consequently, it outgrew its current structure.  It can no longer effectively and efficiently meet all of the needs of its members.  They are being crammed for Sunday school space.  Their youth ministries need more space.  They do not have the room to fellowship with one another.

But this is America.  Land of the free.  Surely, a church that has been meeting on its own land and in its own building for over fifteen years can expand its building a few more square feet to allow it to minister to its congregation.

In about April of 2008, the Church began meeting with city officials to begin the process of expanding its current facility.  These city officials worked with the Church, and its architects, as they devised plans to ensure that this expansion would meet city code.

But when the Church submitted its application to the city council for approval, the city decided it no longer wanted a growing church in that part of town.  The city issued a moratorium, stopping all church construction in the town for one year as it contemplated how it could limit this church’s growth.  Even though the moratorium supposedly applied to all churches, Woodridge was the only church in town that was pursuing a building project.  So it is clear that this moratorium targeted one church.

While the moratorium was in place, the city changed its code and created an odd new zoning district called “Rural Public/Semi Public” that includes only the Woodridge Church, one other church, and city hall.  Seeing this new district on the map immediately makes one think of the old gerry-mandered voting districts.

The City Planning Commission met to come up with new guidelines that would govern this new district.  They concluded that all buildings in this new zone could be no bigger than 45,000 square feet.  While this placed a limit on church growth, at least it would allow the Church to build on its property according to its submitted plans.

But not so fast.  The city, offering no rationale, rejected the City Planning Commission’s proposed guidelines and adopted a maximum square feet limit of 40,000 square feet.  This meant that the church would have to go back to the drawing board as its plans were all based on a 42,000 square feet church building.  Its application was now not in compliance with city code. 

 In America, we have certain freedoms.  The first one being the right to freely exercise your religion. City officials should not be targeting a church with the intent to limit its growth and ministry. Therefore, the Alliance Defense Fund has filed a federal lawsuit seeking a court order to stop this discriminatory treatment of the church.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

ADF filed a lawsuit on behalf of Tree of Life Christian Schools against the City of Upper Arlington, Ohio.  The lawsuit is the result of the City’s denial of zoning approval for Tree of Life to operate its ministry at its building in Upper Arlington.

Tree of Life Christian Schools serves about 660 students in the Columbus area.  The school is 33 years old and is sponsored by seven Columbus area churches.  The Mission Statement for Tree of Life is, “In partnership with the family and the church, the mission of Tree of Life Christian Schools is to glorify God by educating students in His truth and discipling them in Christ.”  The school is currently spread among four campuses in the Columbus area.  Three of the campuses are temporary locations in church facilities.  Tree of Life is bursting at the seams, and has had to turn away students because it lacks the space. Some of the facilities where Tree of Life is located are old and in need of substantial repair or remodeling to make them suitable for long-term use.

Tree of Life began a search for a new building in 2006.  It reviewed over 20 potential sites in the Columbus area, and finally found a building that served as a headquarters for AOL for many years.  The building had been vacant for several years and, with some appropriate modifications, would serve perfectly as a school building.  Through a set of truly miraculous circumstances, Tree of Life acquired the building in 2010.

The City of Upper Arlington, though, refused to even allow Tree of Life to apply for zoning approval to use its new building.  The City’s zoning code allows secular institutions similar in character and intensity of use to Tree of Life to use the building.  For example, the City’s zoning code allows for Child Daycare facilities to use the building as a matter of right.  The zoning code definition of a Child Daycare facility is virtually identical to Tree of Life’s activities.  Yet, despite this preferential treatment of secular institutions, Tree of Life was not even allowed to ask the City for zoning approval to operate its ministry at its new building.

This unequal treatment is exactly why Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, also known as RLUIPA.  RLUIPA is a federal law that, among other things, prohibits the government from treating religious uses on less than equal terms with secular uses.  In simple terms, RLUIPA demands that if the government allows secular institutions or assemblies particular rights or privileges in their zoning code, then it must extend that same treatment to religious assemblies or institutions.

RLUIPA turned ten years old last year and Tree of Life’s case against the City of Upper Arlington demonstrates just how important RLUIPA is to protect the rights of religious institutions.  If your church’s ministry is being prohibited by an unlawful zoning code, let us know about it.  We want to help, just as we are helping Tree of Life, to remove the barriers to spreading the Gospel.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch.

Have you heard the joke, “if con is the opposite of pro, then congress is the opposite of progress?”  While there might be several examples supporting the truth of this statement, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person’s Act (“RPUIPA”), passed by Congress, is not one of them.

RLUIPA is an example of Congress actually doing well by churches and protecting them from overzealous zoning officials.   Churches were being pushed out of cities and counties.  For example, they were being told they could not locate in the business district because church use was supposedly inconsistent with generating a revenue stream for the city.  But on the other hand, churches were also told they could not locate in residential areas on the theory that church use caused traffic and noise issues so it was inconsistent with residential use as well.  Churches had a real uphill battle on their hands just to locate within any part of urban and suburban areas.

To make matters worse, cities could discriminate against churches under the guise of a bogus safety issue that for some reason, only applied to churches and not other similar uses.   Something had to be done to rein in this seemingly unstoppable power of zoning officials to hinder church property use.

So Congress stepped up and provided churches with meaningful protection against these overzealous zoning officials by passing RLUIPA.  This federal law prohibits towns and counties from treating churches differently than other similar uses.  It protects churches from ordinances that substantially burden their beliefs and practices.

But a recent decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of appeals in River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, Illinois, threatens to gut the protections of RLUIPA.  In this case, the River of Life church bought a building in a commercial district to hold its church services.  When the church bought the property, the following uses were automatically permitted: art galleries, gymnasiums, meeting halls, lounges and taverns, along with several other uses.  In addition, the following uses were allowed with a permit: museums, day care centers, schools of any kind, community centers, and live entertainment venues.

But, the city prohibited any and all church use in the district!  What possible reason could the city have for prohibiting a church, which teaches moral values to the citizenry, while allowing community centers and live entertainment venues?

So the church filed a lawsuit claiming that the town’s actions violated their constitutional rights, as well as their rights under RLUIPA.  But the Seventh Circuit ruled against the church.  In so doing, the Seventh Circuit effectively eliminated the protections of RLUIPA.   We will delve deeper into the court’s reasons in future blogs, but for now, I would like to point out this quote from the court: “Commerce and industry must be recognized for what they are, necessary and desirable elements of the community….”  See 2010 WL 2630602, *5 (C.A. 7 (Ill.)).

According to the court, the town was justified in discriminating against the city because “commerce and industry” are “necessary and desirable elements of the community”.   But what about the church?  Is not the work of the church necessary and desirable for the community?  Of course it is.  But to certain government officials who only understand the value of the dollar, providing moral direction and the other benefits of churches is worthless.

Maybe there will come a day when we remember that churches are also beneficial – and even necessary – to communities.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch