Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2008

Home

90 building; or conversion of real property for the pur- pose of religious exercise" (42 U.s.c. 92oooccs(7)(B)). The question of substantial burden often comes up in the context of individual review of special use, conditional use, or planned unit development appli- cations. If an application is denied (or approved with major modifications), the religious institution may assert that denial of its preferred site consti- tutes a substantial burden and a violation of RLUIPA. Many religious institutions have asserted that virtu- . ally any denial of zoning approval is a substantial burden on their religious exercise. Courts generally reject this argument and hold that a religious institution's inability to locate, expand; or develop accessory facilities.at a particular location is not, in and of itself, a substantial burden on its exercise of religion. This consensus begins with the idea that RLUIPA is not a free pass that allows religious institutions to escape the difficulties that many landowners face in finding suitable (or afford- able) land and in obtaining zoning approval. Nor is RLUIPA a guarantee that a religious institution will be able to locate or expand at its favored site, even when denial ofthat site will cause inconvenience, disappointment, 'or a loss of congregants. Rather, courts have been focusing on objective questions such as the amount of land in the city or town poten- tially available for religious use, the ability of the reli- gious institution to find other suitable locations, and the size of the facility that the municipality is willing to allow as compared to what is reasonably neces- sary for the institution's purposes. Here is where sound planning co~es into play. Courts are mostly likely to find a substantial burden when denial of zoning relief is accompanied by a set of facts that demonstrates bad faith or hostility on the part of the municipality (i.e., because the municipal- ity's reasons for denial appear disingenuous, illogical. or unsupported by planning principles). In one. California case. for exam pie. a county overrode the recommendation of its own planning division and denied a conditional use permit for a Sikh temple. The temple then identified another location that did not raise the same concerns regarding potential conflicts with residential uses. Again, planning staff issued a favorable report. Neighbors. however, complained about "traffic and property values" and the board of supervisors rejected the second site as well. Although each denial might be independently justifiable and not necessarily the product of discrimination, the courts fourid that, as an'overall course of conduct. the county placed a substantial burden on the religious organization and appeared to give it"the runaround" (Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2006)). ZONINGPRACTICE 8.08 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 6