NORWALK, Conn. – Does the proposed legal settlement of the suit filed by the Al Madany Islamic Center against the city of Norwalk over the denial of a permit to build a mosque and accessory building address the Zoning Commission issues?
No one involved in the negotiations, other than the lawyers, whom we have already quoted, will talk about what went on in the talks, per court order.
The following includes the nine-point reason for denial from the June 6, 2012 Zoning Commission minutes. We compared the denial resolution, which passed the commission vote, 4-3, with the settlement proposal. In italics are our notes. We have attached the full minutes of that meeting and the released settlement documents.
1. The claimed accessory uses in the large rear building have not been clearly defined by the applicant as required in the Special Permit application instructions and section 118-1450B of the regulations; We did not see any definition of use in the documents provided beyond what was originally proposed.
2. The traffic report failed to identify any uses or analyze any uses of the rear building as required in the Special Permit application instructions and section 118-1450B of the regulations; We did not see any definition of use in the documents provided beyond what was originally proposed.
3. The density of the use and the bulk of the buildings (118-1450C1a) is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the regulations, to wit, it is substantially larger than most places of worship, it would not blend well with the surrounding residential neighborhood, and could not be adequately screened from the neighbors’ views; Size of building and screening issues were addressed; building size was reduced, and screening landscape was enhanced.
4. The rear building is much larger than the main building (place of worship), and therefore, we find that it does not comply with section 118-310B(4) in that it is not incidental to and customarily associated with the principal Special Meeting of the Zoning Commission use, further, it is inconsistent with the low density nature of the zone and with local street characteristics (section 118-310A); rear building size was reduced; usable space was reduced by about 47 percent.
5. The proposal to share parking with an offsite church does not comply with the parking regulations (section 118-1220 H and K), to wit, no long term parking agreement was submitted, nor any proof provided that that those spaces are available for use during the times needed by the applicant. Moreover, the offsite parking proposal itself is acknowledgement that there is not sufficient parking on the site; Parking issues were addressed, including making 135 onsite spaces instead of 89. Offsite parking was addresses as well.
6. The rear building which is not part of the religious function is not eligible for the height exemption under section 118-810K, and therefore; it exceeds the height maximum requirement; Height was brought under the 40-foot maximum.
7. Due to insufficient parking, the bulk of the buildings, and the lack of screening, the project will adversely impact property values and therefore does not comply. with section 118-1450C(1)(h) – impact on neighborhood properties as compared to uses and structures permitted as of right; Parking, building size and screening were all addressed.
8. The project proposed inadequate screening and buffering (118-1450C(1)(g)) which is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the regulations. The proposal has not, and perhaps, cannot propose large enough plantings to screen the buildings due to their height and bulk; Landscaping buffer/screening issues were addressed.
9. Due to inadequate parking as well as the bulk of the rear building and its ability to accommodate approximately 400 people seated around tables or 850 people seated in chairs we believe that the project will impact stable traffic flow (118-1450C(1)(b)). The applicant submitted inadequate traffic analyses with this regard and we feel that the oppositions’ Traffic Engineer gave credible testimony as to adverse impact of traffic. Useable space in back building was reduced by nearly half, parking was increased as noted, traffic issues were addressed.
Remember, RLUIPA places the burden on the municipality to prove why governmental interests should override the right of religious practices. Some of what was not changed may have been considered to be protected by the law. From the U.S. Department of Justice website: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/rluipaexplain.php
RLUIPA prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that substantially burden the religious exercise of churches or other religious assemblies or institutions absent the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. This prohibition applies in any situation where: (i) the state or local government entity imposing the substantial burden receives federal funding; (ii) the substantial burden affects, or removal of the substantial burden would affect, interstate commerce; or (iii) the substantial burden arises from the state or local government’s formal or informal procedures for making individualized assessments of a property’s uses. In addition, RLUIPA prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that:
(1) treat churches or other religious assemblies or institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious institutions;
(2) discriminate against any assemblies or institutions on the basis of religion or religious denomination;
(3) totally exclude religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or
(4) unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.
The Department of Justice can investigate alleged RLUIPA violations and bring a lawsuit to enforce the statute. The Department can obtain injunctive, but not monetary, relief. Individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions can also bring a lawsuit in federal or state court to enforce RLUIPA.
Leave a Reply
You must Register or Login to post a comment.