(concurring). I agree with part IV(B) of the majority opinion. I write separately because I believe it is unnecessary to determine whether defendants made an individualized assessment in this case or whether the statutory test of strict scrutiny was met, because plaintiff failed to show that its petition for rezoning was related to plaintiffs exercise of religion. Thus, I would reverse the Court of Appeals judgment on that basis and remand to the trial court for dismissal of plaintiffs claim.
WEAVER, J., concurred with CAVANAGH, J.