Church expansion ruling sidesteps federal issue

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), May 20, 2004 by Lawrence Hurley

A Frederick resident who challenged the city's use of a federal law that protects religious groups lost a motion for summary judgment yesterday, bringing an abrupt end to his case before the issue was even reached.

Frank Gallart, who lives next door to Frederick Presbyterian Church, filed a complaint in April 2002, when the city entered into what he believed was an illegal consent agreement with the church over a planned extension.

He claimed the city had allowed the church to bypass planning laws, while the city responded by saying it could do so thanks to a law passed in 2000, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. (The act, generally referred to as RLUIPA, restricts the role of government in regulating the exercise of religion.)

But the case ended on a muted note yesterday when the church and city, co-defendants in the case, won a motion for summary judgment on another issue, meaning that Frederick County Circuit Court Judge Julie Stevenson Solt did not even have to reach the RLUIPA argument.

A disappointed Leslie A. Powell, Gallart's attorney, claimed her opponents dramatically changed their own interpretation of Frederick's zoning laws in order to prevail.

With all due respect, the court erred in its judgment, she said.

Gallart declined to comment yesterday, saying only he had not decided whether he would appeal the decision.

Solt ruled that Section 14.2 of the city's zoning law, which refers to on-site parking requirements, did not apply to the church's zoning request.

The ruling vitiated Gallart's argument that the city had ignored its own planning laws.

The church plans to build a 1,400-square-foot extension that would include handicapped-accessible toilets, an elevator and new, wider stairs.

The zoning law states that any building that is being extended must provide one new parking space per four people who can be seated in the new area.

However, the church does not plan to put any seating in the extension and, as it was built in 1825, it has never had any on-site parking.

Church and city lawyers also argued that the parking requirements are relevant only if there is a substantial change of use to the building, which was not the case here.

Powell maintained that the zoning law did apply, which was the reason the church entered into the consent agreement after losing its initial attempt to get a waiver from the city in 1999.

It doesn't matter how long the church has been there, she said.

Powell also claimed that the city had always claimed that the zoning law did apply, but changed its mind after Gallart filed suit.

In issuing her decision from the bench yesterday morning, Solt conceded that the statute was badly written but stressed that the church's plan was clearly not changing the use or the intensity of use of the building, meaning that the parking requirement did not apply.

The church's lawyer, Brian E. Barkley, said his clients will just be happy to go ahead with the plans for the extension.

They are glad that they will be able to provide for their members, particularly disabled members, he said. We are obviously very happy with the result.

As for the RLUIPA issue, Roman P. Storzer, a lawyer for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a Washington-based religious rights group that provided legal assistance to the church, claimed he was confident he would have won the argument even if it was reached.

The [RLUIPA] claims here were particularly strong, Storzer said.

A major argument in favor of the city's actions was the church's inability to cater to its members because of the lack of facilities for the disabled, he said.

We are grateful the court recognized that the city did the right thing, Storzer added.