Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin were contrary to the rules of the agricultural zone iL'''l which the property was located and the predominantly rural character of the surrounding area and the county's master plan. The board authorized t he county attorney to file an action in court syeking a declaration that its decision was consistent with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (the Act). The board asked the court to find that its decision either: 1) did not impose a substantial burden on the church, or, 2) if it did, it was the least restrictive means for promoting the legitimate government interest of preserving the area's character and the master county plan. The church asked that the board's request be dismissed, arguing that the board did not have standing to bring such a claim. At the same time, the church had initiated its own lawsuit against the board claiming vio- lations of the Act. Decision: Dismissed. Although the county had a general right to sue (and could also be sued) it had to "point to a specific statutory power...that [was] sought to be vindicated" to have standing in a lawsuit. The court determined that, here, the county did not have standing to bring this claim, and, regardless, because essentially the same claims were pending before an- other court in the church-initiated lawsuit, the case should be dismissed. The court had to evaluate whether: 1) a declaration by the court would settle the controversy at hand; 2) the declaration would serve a useful purpose in clariL'lring the legal relations at issue; 3) the declara- tory remedy was beD."'1g used merely for the purpose of creating a proce- dural "fence"; and 4) whether there was an alternative remedy that was better or more effective. The court found that, while the board may have wanted to ensure compliance with the Act sincerely, the request for a declaration of such #om the court was clearly a procedural maneuver by the board to "seize a strategic advantage" in the church's lawsuit-which, if decided in the church's favor, could levy damages against the county. A declara- tion from the court that it had not violated the Act could protect the board from having to pay damages or attorneys' fees. The court noted that the board would have an opportunity to prove that it had not violated the Act in the church's lawsuit, and it declined to issue a decision in this case. See also: State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mhoon, 31 F.3d 979 (10th Cir. 1994). 10 174