Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2012

Home

February 10, 2012 I Volume 61 No. 3 Zoning Bulletin The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, held that: the Church's RLUIPA claim was unripe because the church failed to complete even one full use permit application. The court also held that the County could not be equitably estopped from prohibiting the Church from using its recreation hall for religious services without a required permit. The court explained that the County's RLUIPA claim was unripe for lack of a final decision. "A claim that the application of government reg- ulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the gov- ernment entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the prop- erty at issue," said the court. Here, since neither the Park owner nor the Church submitted even a single application for a Use Permit, the court "[could] . not determine if the Church ha[d] suffered a `substantial bur- den' under RLUIPA ... ." The Church had presented no evidence that the County would not or could not issue a Use Permit once the County had received a complete application from the Church. The Church had also argued that the County should be equitably es- topped from prohibiting its use of the recreation hall for religious ser- vices because, among other things: the Church did not know it needed a permit to use the recreation hall for religious services; and the Church had reasonably relied on the County's lack of enforcement of permit re- quirements when it made certain improvements to the recreation hall. The court rejected this equitable estoppel argument. The court explained that in order for it to grant equitable estoppel, the Church had to es- tablish four elements: (1) the County was "apprised of the facts "; (2) the County intended that its conduct be acted upon, or acted such that the Church "had a right to believe it was so intended "; (3) the Church was "ignorant of the true state of the facts "; and (4) "relied upon [the] conduct to [its] injury." If one of those elements was missing, the court could not grant estoppel. Here, the court found that, among others, the third element was missing. The Church "[could] not claim that it knew neither that to use the recreation hall for religious services generally re- quired a Use Permit, nor that the Church in particular needed to apply for one." The Church had been informed by a County employee in 1986 that a Use Permit was required. The Church could not, under California law, "rely on lack of enforcement, even in the form of previous exemp- tion grants, to establish entitlement to equitable estoppel." See also: Williamson County Regional Planning Com'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S. Ct. 3108, 87 L. Ed. 2d 126 (1985). See also: Green v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 185 Cal. App. 3d 544, 230 Cal. Rptr. 13 (1st Dist. 1986). See also: Golden Gate Water Ski Club v. County of Contra Costa, 165 Cal. App. 4th 249, 80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 876 (1st Dist. 2008). 4 © 2012 Thomson Reuters