Can you provide any insight on the issue Mr. Munzel is quoted on in the article about historic districts not affecting religious institutions, which Chuck responds to in comments? Is this an idea that’s been verified by anyone involved in the process?

That is not my understanding. IANAL, but have spent some years administering both zoning and historic preservation ordinances, including legal challenge-free application of those to religious properties.

The most relevant area of statute and case law here is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which provides generally that,

“No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government can demonstrate that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly or institution

1. is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
2. is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

Nothing in there automatically exempts a religious building from historic preservation ordinances. In order to make a successful claim under RLUIPA, the church would have to demonstrate that, in Chuck’s example, the requirement to use Gutter A rather than Gutter B would impose a substantial burden on religious exercise, with extra cost not automatically being a substantial burden.

RLUIPA goes on with other portions that require land use regulations not discriminate against or put religious institutions on less-than-equal-terms with other land uses. (e.g. prohibiting a church but permitting a concert hall with similar objective impacts because the concert hall will pay taxes.)

Finally, Dave, you write, “Approval of the Heritage Row PUD would entail a change in the city’s zoning to fit the project – that’s inherently what a PUD is. So the matter of right project would no longer be “matter of right,” because it would no longer meet the city’s code, which would now be defined by the PUD zoning.” Is this argument accepted by all sides or clearly resolved in case law? It seems to me the kind of thing lawyers would have a lot of fun (and make a lot of money) arguing about.

That’s an understanding that I confirmed with Wendy Rampson, who’s head of planning for the city of Ann Arbor, and Jill Thacher, who’s the city’s planner who specializes in historic preservation issues.

I think it’s important to remember that the committee was only tasked to answer 1 question: does the proposed area fit with the standards of a historic district. re: @Marvin, in that regard, I think it’s appropriate it was staffed with preservationists.

That said, there are other important questions (impact on tax policy, land use, etc.) that should also be part of the discussion. I’m grateful for the hard work the committee put in, but their judgment on if the area meets the criteria for a historic district is not the only decision to make here.

On a side note, I was surprised to learn that religious buildings are exempt from historic district regulations. My faith community, Ann Arbor Friends Meeting, is in a historic district, and we recently spent A LOT of money replacing gutters in a manner to meet historic district guidelines (copper ain’t cheap). It was an experience that made me glad I don’t live in a historic district.

Finally, Dave, you write, “Approval of the Heritage Row PUD would entail a change in the city’s zoning to fit the project – that’s inherently what a PUD is. So the matter of right project would no longer be “matter of right,” because it would no longer meet the city’s code, which would now be defined by the PUD zoning.” Is this argument accepted by all sides or clearly resolved in case law? It seems to me the kind of thing lawyers would have a lot of fun (and make a lot of money) arguing about.

The Broadway Historic District is the brownish area in the upper right part of the top-most graphic in the article. It was approved by the city council in the spring of 2008.

One other observation: is it true that there is some sort of historic district up Braodway? That’s incredible, if true. Nothing historic up there but one house and even that is tenuous.