Plaintiff Dixon owned property located in the Central Business district in the Town of Coats, NC, and leased it for various uses, including a church from 2003-2005. In 2005 the Town adopted a zoning ordinance placing the property in an area called the Mixed Use Village District (MUV), which was created to encourage storefront retail, professional office, and upper-story dwelling units, with permitted uses including professional offices, retail establishments, restaurants, artists’ studios and cultural facilities. Gethers was leasing the property at the time for use as a church, and requested to have water service turned on. The zoning director first denied the request, but then approved an Application for Zoning permit and agreed to let Dixon lease the property for use as a church “for one time, but once that church closed down, that would be it.” Harnett County issued a Certificate of Occupancy, and Gethers’ operated the property as a church until she vacated in May 2008. Plaintiff signed lease with another church group, who had their request for water service denied by Stephenson because the property was not zoned for church use.
The Board of Adjustments upheld the decision to deny the use of property as a church, and plaintiff filed action seeking review of the judgment, and declaratory judgment invalidating the Ordinance on the grounds that it violates North Carolina Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and claims under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed the claims under RLUIPA, because the zoning ordinance which prohibited religious assembles within a six-block area of the Town did not render religious exercise effectively impracticable within the Town as a whole and thus did not constitute as a “substantial burden,” on religious exercise and because plaintiffs did not provide evidence to show they qualified as a “religious assembly or institution.” The court also dismissed plaintiff’s contention that the ordinance violated the federal constitution because the Establishment Clause doesn’t restrict towns from making land use decisions, plaintiff’s preference to have a church on a particular piece of property is not enough to establish a nexus between the zoning law and impairment of plaintiff’s ability to carry out a religious mission, and the burdens imposed by the ordinance were found to be incidental and insubstantial in no way interfering with the ability to adhere to religious beliefs. The state constitutional claim was dismissed as well, because religious freedoms protected by the North Carolina Constitution are co-extensive with those protected by federal law.
Dixon v. Town of Coats, No. 5:08 CV 489, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56740 (E.D.N.C., Western Division 6/9/2010)
The decision can be accessed here.
