From The Daily Camera:
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Boulder County against Rocky Mountain Christian Church in Niwot that sought legal clarification of the county's authority to quash the church's expansion plans. The county asked for a declaratory judgment at the time it issued its denial in February 2006, requesting a determination from the court as to whether its decision was in keeping with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
The act prohibits governments from enacting land-use regulations that place a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion.
In dismissing Boulder County's suit late last week, the court said the dispute between Rocky Mountain Christian Church and the county is already being handled in federal court as part of a separate and more comprehensive suit filed by the church against the county after its request to more than double the size of its facilities at the corner of 95th Street and Niwot Road was denied.
That lawsuit, in which the church claims that the county's decision violated the federal religious protection law, goes to trial in September.
Welcome!
This forum is a sounding board for a range of issues facing eastern Boulder County. I will prompt discussions with my posts and elected officials can tap into the concerns of citizens here, and explain their rationale on decisions.
Follow along with the latest discussion by checking the list of recent comments on the right. You can comment with your name, a nickname or anonymously if you wish. You can become a contributor as well. Thank you for your comments!
Latest Post:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Obviously I can't keep up with this. I did do a little checking up and it is true that both the original RMCC case and the County's now-dismissed case were filed in U.S. District Court - there is no state case.
Prediction # 1 - There won't be much to comment on between now and trial in September. Prediction # 2 - The case will come down to the alleged "animus" (against religion and/or the RMCC brand of religion) of the County Commission in denying the application. Does anyone know what the Commissioners said to warrant this allegation?
I also wonder what the County Planning Commission said about the case before it got to the County Commissioners, was that board more sympathetic? I guess I still don't see how "animus" is implicit in the land use decision alone, but since this is close to a de facto urbanized area of the unincorporated County, maybe I'm just uninformed. To tell you the truth, I don't even know what the relevant comp plan provisions say about the church site, per se...
Post a Comment