Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 10, 2012 1 Volume 61 No. 3 The Park was located in Guatay, California, an unincorporated portion of San Diego County (the "County ") . The parcel of land on which the Park sat was zoned "rural residential" under the County's zoning ordi- nance. In that zoning district, land use permits were required for reli- gious assemblies, among other uses. There was no evidence that the recreation building had been used for religious services prior to 1986: The Church made no attempt to com- plete and file a Use Permit application. on April 16, 2008, the County issued a Notice of Violation ("NOV") to the Park. The NOV noted that the recreation building had been "ille- gally converted for use as a church." The NOV required the Park owner to notify the Church to cease using the building for religious assembly within 30 days of the notice. Having found the Park owner failed to properly notify the Church of the violation, on May 30, 2008, the County sent a letter to the Church's pastor. That letter advised the Church that the property was not zoned for religious assembly and that no permit had been obtained to allow religious assembly at the property. The Church was ordered to cease and desist religious services at the recreation building. Eventually, the Church sued the County. Among other things, the Church alleged that: the County's enforcement of the land use regu- lations against the Church violated RLUIPA's "substantial burden on religious exercise" prohibition. RLUIPA provides that a government land -use regulation "that imposes a substantial burden on the reli- gious exercise of a ... religious assembly or institution" is unlawful "unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden ... is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc(a)(1).) The Church also argued that, since the County had not enforced the land use regulations against the Church's religious assembly use in more than 20 years, principles of equitable estoppel should enjoin the County from arguing that a Use Permit was now required. The district court found that the Church's RLUIPA claim failed be- cause it was not ripe (Le., not ready for judicial review) given the fact that the Church had never applied for a land use permit or zoning change. The court found that the Church's equitable estoppel claim also failed because: any reliance on the existence of a valid Use Permit (i.e., a permit that had been issued to the Park owner for music assemblies at the recreation hall had expired prior to the Church's use of the recre- ation hall) or on lack of prior enforcement was unreasonable. The Church appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. © 2012 Thomson Reuters 3