Members of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro have been able to observe Ramadan at their mosque on Veals Road this year. Last year the center could not occupy the mosque until the end of Ramadan. Christopher Merchant/DNJ
MURFREESBORO — The Tennessee Supreme Court will decide if it will review whether Rutherford County provided adequate public notice before approving a mosque.
Plaintiffs’s co-attorney Tom Smith of Franklin contends the high court should rule on the case just as it did in a case in which it decided that neighbors in Rutherford County were not provided enough notice pertaining a major change near their homes regarding a shooting range.
“It violates the due process,” said Smith, noting that residents were surprised to learn a large “Muslim training center” would be built near their homes with sports fields and a cemetery. “You have to notify the neighbors.”
The county contends the Supreme Court should reject hearing an appeal of a ruling that upheld the way Rutherford County provided public notice before approving a mosque in 2010, according to a defense attorney’s recent filing.
“This court should deny the plaintiffs/appellees’ application for permission to appeal, in part, because there is no important question of law that needs to be settled,” states the document filed last week by Murfreesboro attorney Josh McCreary on behalf of the county’s Regional Planning Commission. “As set forth above, the legal parameters regarding notice are settled under Tennessee law.”
The planning commissioners approved long-term site plans May 24, 2010, for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro to construct a 52,960-square-foot facility off Bradyville Pike. The ICM moved into the building upon completion of the first 12,000 square feet a year ago. A federal court helped the congregation by ruling in 2012 that the congregation’s religious land-use rights were being violated by the local lawsuit.
McCreary wants the high court to accept a Tennessee Court of Appeals decision on May 29 that backed the local government’s method to provide public notice. The county announced the meeting time, date and location in question through a legal advertisement in The Murfreesboro Post, which is the common practice in recent years for meetings pertaining to site plans.
The appeals court reversed the ruling by local Chancellor Robert Corlew III on the anniversary of his decision on May 29, 2012. Corlew determined that the county failed to provide adequate public notice for an issue of great concern for the community.
The chancellor had suggested the county planning commission place the mosque issue back on a meeting agenda, provide proper public notice and vote on the site plan without violating the congregations’ religious land-use rights.
McCreary’s document complained that Corlew did not provide instruction to the county on how to provide proper notice or define what circumstances dictate when greater notice is required.
McCreary contends the meeting did not require an agenda to be part of the legal notice or that planning staff send letters to nearby neighbors about the issue involving an administrative decision on site plans for the mosque. The congregation already had a right to construct a religious meeting place, so no public hearing to examine rezoning for land use was required, according to McCreary’s document.
“Contrary to the holding of the trial court and plaintiffs/appellees’ arguments, the Court of Appeals recognized that no cases have required an agenda or notice of the content of the meeting with respect to a regularly scheduled meeting,” McCreary’s document states.
“Throughout this litigation, the plaintiffs/appellees have urged the court to adopt a heightened notice requirement because this application involved a mosque, which they presumed to be of significant public importance,” McCreary’s document adds. “As mentioned above, the trial court incorrectly adopted such a requirement based solely on the one fact distinguishing this site plan application from any other — it was for the construction of a mosque. The Court of Appeals correctly decided not to adopt such a standard.”
McCreary goes on to assert that there’s no requirement for a notice to include an agenda, be advertised on radio or television, be placed on a website or in a newspaper of general circulation.
“Thus, all of the heightened notice obligations urged by the plaintiffs/appellees because this was a mosque are without legal foundation,” McCreary’s document states. “The Court of Appeals correctly interpreted and applied the law. There is no need for Supreme Court review.”
Plaintiffs’ co-attorney Joe Brandon Jr. of Murfreesboro, however, contends the state’s top court must review this case because of the differing rulings between the Tennessee Supreme Court, the appeals court and chancery court.
“There are conflicting decisions,” Brandon said.
He takes issue that the ICM contends that the plaintiffs are wasting taxpayers money with this case.
“All we’re doing is holding the government accountable,” Brandon said. “If the ICM would go back through the approval process by giving proper notice, there would be no litigation.”
Contact Scott Broden at 615-278-5158 or sbroden@dnj.com. Follow him on Twitter @ScottBroden.
Firefox
Chrome
Safari