Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Religious Uses topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kaysville planning commission pauses final action on allowing religious uses in nonresidential zones
Summary
The commission opened a review of a text amendment intended to bring city code into compliance with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act but later paused final recommendation after procedural and wording concerns; staff will revise language and re-notice the item.
Planning commission members discussed and debated a proposed text amendment that would allow religious uses to be treated as a permitted conditional use in certain nonresidential zones and bring Kaysville into compliance with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
Staff told commissioners the amendment was intended to remove barriers that can arise when religious uses are limited to residential zones and to avoid discrimination claims under federal law. “It’s essentially a law that prohibits language authorities from discriminating against religious entities at its most basic level,” a planning staff member said during the discussion.
Commissioners pressed staff on wording and internal consistency. One commissioner said examples listed in the conditional-use sections did not match the new definition language and offered to provide detailed edits. Commissioners discussed whether uses such as private schools, daycare and recreational facilities were already permitted elsewhere under state code or by existing retail/service definitions. Staff acknowledged some of the draft language was prepared by an intern and said refinements would be appropriate.
The commission initially made and passed a motion recommending the text amendments to the city council. Later in the meeting members discovered the required public hearing had not been held on the draft language, prompting a procedural review. Commissioners agreed the definition language — including how the ordinance separates “public” and “quasi-public” uses and how it lists examples — needed more work to avoid ambiguity or unintended consequences. The commission voted to reconsider its earlier recommendation and to continue the item so staff can work with legal counsel and return with clarified language and proper notice.
The commission’s next step is to have staff and city legal counsel revise the draft definition and conditional-use language, re-notice the item for a future meeting and return it to the planning commission for formal recommendation to the city council.
