pf10-006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Understanding RLUIPA - the Unreasonable Limitations and Ex... . -� Tomki�v Dahon Main Site T�)MKI�ti� DALTC�N: RL��II'A BLt�C:, • Ahout RLU,IPA o Histo ' . ��: • Our Ser�•ices • Our Attortie�� o Daniel P. Dalron o Paulinc J. Penslcr o Andrey T. Tc�rnkicv o Zana Tomich • Cascs o Yublications o Newsroom • Contact US « Underst�indine RLUIPA - the Non-Discrimination Clause LJnderstandin� RLUIPA - the remedies » http:lhvw w.attorneysforlanduse .com/RLUIPABIog/?p=79 � Understanding RLUIPA — the Unreasonable Limitations and Exclusion Clauses The fourth and fifth prongs of RLUIPA are the unreasonable limitations and exclusions clauses found at 42 USC 2000cc (2)(b)(2). In order establish a claim under these parts of RLUIPA, religious institutions must establish that religious assemblies have been totally excluded from a jurisdiction or that they have been unreasonably limited. Although simple in terminology, the application of this provision has proven to be difficult given the multiple definitions of what is "excluded" and what is "unreasonably limited." In some judicial circuits, Courts have ruled that while the fac[ that religious uses are not "permitted uses" within any district of a community municipality dces not automatically prove "exclusion" exist where special permits or variances are available to religious organizations. Other judicial circuits have concluded that communities claimed interest in preserving property values cannot be used to justify a complete exclusion of a religious institution from the City's jurisdiction. As to "unreasonable limitations" on religious uses, the legislative history explains that "(w]hat is reasonable must be determined in light of all the facts, including the actual availability of land and the economics of religious organizations." A case in point is In Elsinore Christian Center v. Ciry of Lake Elsinore, 291 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (C.D. Cal. 2003) rev'd on other grounds 197 Fed. Appx. 718 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding RLUIPA constitutional), the City denied a church's conditional use permit. During its hearing on the matter, the Lake Elsinore City Council articulated three principal bases for its denial: 1) maintaining needed services provided by the Site's current tenant (a discount food store and recycling center); 2) preventing (oss of property tax revenue by replacing a commercial tenant with a non-commercial user, and 3) the possible inadequacy of on-site parking for the Church's proposed use, and potential adverse consequences on the parking needs of adjacent users. The U.S. District Court found that "the maintenance of property tax revenue is a potentia(ly pretextual basis for decision-making that appears to have been a specific target of RLUIPA." 291 F. Supp. 2d at 1093. The court �vent on to state: "The Act's drafters were concemed that where, as here, a church is required to seek a permit, "[t]he zoning board �does] not have to give a specific reason (for denying the permit]. They can say it is not in the general welfare, or they i of 3 3/20/ 10 10:48 AM