Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2010

Home

that an application for a special exception does not pose a substantial burden because it "does not coerce conformity of a religious adherent's behavior." Orange County's zoning requires a special exception for religious organizations and day care centers located in residential R-iA districts. After being issued a code violation notice for operating a synagogue, the rabbi refused to apply for a special exception and eventually a lien was placed on his property. I n Christian Methodist Episcopal Church v. Montgomery, the court ruled that enforcing zoning regulations against a church that failed to apply for a special use permit did not create a substantial burden. In Morgan Hill, California, a religiously affiliated college maintained that the city's denial of its rezoning application to allow the college to build an educational facility with outdoor sports fields, a gymnasium, a theater/chapel, and residence halls for 1,2oo students was a substantial burden. In San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill, the Ninth Circuit concluded the college was "simply adverse to complying with the PUD ordinance's requirements." SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN FOUND A summary of several important decisions in which the religious land -use applicant prevailed on a "substantial burden" claim provides some helpful pointers to avoid RLUIPA litigation. Multiple denials of a cooperative applicant must be well reasoned. The Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City, California, wanted to build a temple to accommodate religious ceremonies for no more than 75 people. In zoos it found a small 1.89-acre parcel in an R-i district and applied for a CUR. The planning department recommended approval, noting that the potential impacts on the residences in the area could be minimized with conditions attached to the permit. Guru Nanak accepted the proposed conditions. The planning commission unanimously denied the CUP application based on "citizens' voiced fears that the resulting noise and traffic would interfere with the existing neighborhood." The following year, Guru Nanak re- turned with a second CUP application, this time on a 28.79-acre parcel located in the "AG" (general agricultural) district. The prop- erty was surrounded by walnut orchards and the nearest residence Was at least 200 feet north of the property. Guru Nanak planned to convert an existing 2,30o-square-foot house into a temple by adding 50o square feet. Again, no more than 75 people would attend ceremonies. Another Sikh temple is located on a io-acre parcel less than a mile away. Guru Nanak accepted all of the devel- opment conditions that the planning depart- ment and the state attached to the CUP, and a negative declaration was issued. The planning commission approved the CUP application on a 4-3 vote, but the neigh- bors appealed, citing concerns about traffic and propertyvalues.The board of supervisors unanimously reversed and denied the CUR. One supervisor rejected the application based tiat burden in this case. First, the broad rea- sons given for both denials could easily apply to all future applications by Guru Nanak. Second, Guru Nanak had readily agreed to all of the mitigation measures suggested by the planners, but the planning commissioners and board of supervisors found their coop- eration insufficient without explaining why. The Guru Nanak lesson is that local government officials must meet religious land -use applicants halfway in the applica- tion process. Multiple applications by a co- operative applicant are a wake-up call that planners should not ignore. Furthermore, if Q The Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City, California, is an example ofa co- operative applicant that was substantially burdened by the county's poorty reasoned denial ofa conditional use permit. -. on the "right to farm," saying that the property had been agricultural and should remain so. Another supervisor said the property "was too far away from the city" and would not promote orderly growth. Two other supervisors called the proposal "leapfrog development." The district court concluded the county had substantially burdened the applicant and granted summary judgment to Guru Nanak. The county provided no argument regard- ing compelling interest. In Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, the Ninth Circuit affirmed and ordered the county to immediately approve the second CLIP. The court cited two reasons for finding a substan- an applicant receives multiple denials, there had better be very strong findings to accom-, pany each denial, and officials should be able to explain where and how the applicant might be successful in the future. Delay, uncertainty, and expense create a substantial burden. In zoos, the Seventh Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment by the district court to the City of New Berlin, Wisconsin, after the court concluded that the denial of a zoning variance substantially burdened the applicant, Sts. Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church (Sts. Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. v. City of 104 ZONINGPRACTICE ao.io AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page4