Maryland Court of Special Appeals rules against church’s sign
The state Court of Special Appeals upheld yesterday the county’s denial of a request by Trinity Assembly of God to erect a large sign on church property at Interstate 83 and the Baltimore Beltway.
The court said the rejection of a variance for the proposed 25-foot-high, 250-square-foot electronic sign, which was four times higher and 10 times bigger than regulations allow, did not infringe on the church’s ability to exercise its constitutional rights.
Excerpts from the opinion in Trinity Assembly of God, Inc. v. People’s Counsel for Baltimore Co., No. 2840s06 (Md. App. Feb. 6, 2008):
. . . Addressing a challenge brought under RLUIPA’s institutionalized person provision, the Fourth Circuit, noting that the Supreme Court has defined the term “substantial burden” in the context of the Free Exercise Clause, concluded that the meaning of “substantial burden” in RLUIPA is substantially the same: namely, “for RLUIPA purposes, a substantial burden on religious exercise occurs when a state or local government, through act or omission, ‘put[s] substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.’” Lovelace, supra, 472 F.3d at 187 (quoting Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 718 (1981)) (emphasis added).
No Maryland appellate court has had occasion to determine the meaning of “substantial burden” or “religious exercise” in the RLUIPA land use context. A number of federal circuit courts have done so, however, and have articulated definitions of “substantial burden” similar to those used in the RLUIPA institutionalized persons context . . .
As the cases discussed above make clear, in determining whether a zoning regulation imposes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise, it is important to consider whether there are effective alternatives to the denied proposed use. Here, the Church has multiple alternative means to preach to and inspire sought-after-members other than by use of a sign that is significantly larger than what the zoning regulations allow. The existing sign that faces I-695 is visible to the passing public and, while not as highly noticeable as the Church would like, serves the same purpose, just to a lesser degree.