Michigan Township Sued Over Denial of Youth for Christ Permit, Accused of Religious Discrimination

The case of Leland Township denying a special use permit to the Youth for Christ ministry has reached federal court, with property owners and ministry leaders accusing the township of religious discrimination. The dispute involves a privately owned building in Leland’s business district, where the ministry sought to use part of the property for prayer, Bible study, fellowship, and mentoring.

Jim VanSteenhouse, an owner of Apollos Properties and a key figure in the challenge, emphasized that the issue transcends zoning concerns. He stated the township’s decision violates constitutional rights and First Amendment freedoms, asserting that the group simply desires the opportunity for youth in Leelanau County to gather for spiritual activities on private property.

Apollos Properties, along with the VanSteenhouse family and Youth for Christ missionaries Micah and Kya Cramer, filed the lawsuit in August. The complaint names Leland Township and local officials, alleging violations of constitutional and civil rights protections. Youth for Christ operates over 100 chapters nationwide, including several in Michigan, and had previously engaged with students through local schools before seeking a permanent location.

The building at 110 North Lake Street was initially considered suitable for the ministry’s use, as it was deemed to qualify as a club under the township’s zoning rules. An attorney advising the township even warned the Planning Commission that denying the permit due to the group’s religious activities could raise constitutional issues.

Despite this warning, the Planning Commission sought a second legal opinion as questions persisted about whether Youth for Christ met the zoning code’s definition of a club. In April, the commission voted 4-1 to deny the special use permit, concluding the ministry did not fit the required criteria.

The lawsuit now asserts that religion was the determining factor in the decision. Property owners and ministry leaders claim the township created a “religious gerrymander,” suggesting the zoning rules were applied inconsistently to allow other groups while excluding religious organizations. The case continues as the parties navigate legal proceedings, with the outcome potentially influencing future interpretations of religious freedom and zoning regulations.

Source: Read the original report