Robinson Cole LLP
High Contrast Mode

Evan J. Seeman concentrates his practice in land use and zoning, real property litigation, and municipal law. Evan offers his clients – including developers, corporations, landowners, municipalities, and advocacy groups – strategic counsel on a broad range of often-complex real estate and land use matters. He works directly with planning professionals to help bring a project across the finish line. Evan is a member of our firm’s Real Estate + Development group.

Land Use – Zoning

Evan assists clients in navigating local, state and federal regulatory requirements for real estate development, helping them secure the necessary permits and approvals. He leads clients in securing zoning map and text amendments, special permits, site plan and subdivision approvals, variances, and wetlands permits. Evan works directly with planning professionals, including certified planners, civil engineers, architects, scientists, and appraisers. He routinely appears before local planning, zoning, and wetlands agencies. Evan utilizes his experience as a past Chair of the Planning & Law Division of the American Planning Association as well as his service on the Executive Board of the CT Chapter of the American Planning Association to undertake projects with a collaborative approach and see them through to completion.

Evan has represented clients in the permitting and development of industrial, manufacturing, commercial, residential, social service, philanthropic, and retail facilities. He obtained special permit approval for a cannabis cultivation and manufacturing operation in Hartford. The project involved the adaptive reuse of an existing 100,000-plus square foot former warehouse facility. Evan recently represented landowners in an application regarding the proposed redevelopment of waterfront property as an outdoor restaurant and beer garden along the Connecticut River. Evan also counsels clients on ways to increase the marketability of property and helps obtain rezoning and text amendment approval to accomplish this goal. He recently obtained text amendment approval to modify a community’s outdated and restrictive business park regulations to facilitate development of approximately 300 acres of vacant land. 

Evan also conducts land use due diligence for property acquisitions.  He performed such service on behalf of a corporation that acquired property in Fairfield County to be developed with two residential buildings of more than 400 units.

Real Property Litigation

Evan has been involved in dozens of administrative appeals. He successfully argued before the Connecticut Appellate Court a zoning appeal involving a planning and zoning commission's issuance of a special permit to a Greenwich, Connecticut food pantry serving those less fortunate. He advised a planning and zoning commission in Hartford County and subsequently represented them in litigation over an affordable housing application. Evan also successfully argued in Superior Court on behalf of the fourth oldest lighthouse in the United States to permit public tours as a legally permitted non-conforming use. He represented an applicant in reaching a favorable resolution in a wetlands appeal regarding a proposal to provide student housing for a university.  He also obtained dismissal of a zoning appeal challenging the re-zoning and special permit approved for youth baseball fields.

Evan handles many other real property disputes. He obtained judgment on behalf of a pharmaceutical client in a quiet title case defending a restrictive covenant that was challenged as an unfair restraint on trade. He is currently representing a property owner in Greenwich in a quiet title action to permit the development of property with affordable housing. Evan also represented a municipality and obtained the dismissal of an injunction action brought by neighboring property owners who contested municipal approval of a 130,000-square-foot ground mounted solar array system to generate energy for a local elementary school.

Evan’s experience includes representing clients in cases involving inverse condemnation, easements, restrictive covenants, First Amendment and equal protection issues, landlord/tenant disputes, and real property tax appeals. Evan also represents property owners in eminent domain matters, challenging both the condemning authority’s right to take property and the authority’s compensation for the property. He represented a landowner whose plans for a mixed-use development were thwarted when part of his land was condemned by a state agency. Evan was part of a team that tried the case and obtained nearly double the amount of damages assessed by the agency (almost $400,000 more in damages). He also has experience in advising condemning authorities in the eminent domain process.

Religious Land Use Litigation

Evan defends municipalities nationwide in cases involving the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). He advises municipalities on religious land use issues by:

  • Revising municipal zoning codes to comply with RLUIPA
  • Counseling municipal land use agencies during the zoning application process to avoid or mitigate potential liability
  • Defending municipalities in RLUIPA litigation in federal court

Evan has been involved in RLUIPA cases across the country concerning the permitting of a mosque, a rabbinical college, cemetery, and other religious uses. He counseled a Connecticut planning and zoning commission in real-time during the public hearing process to review a special permit application for a religious conference center. He also counseled a small community in the western U.S. regarding a zoning application for a religious ritual bath. Evan often speaks and writes about religious land use issues and contributes to the firm’s widely- acclaimed RLUIPA Defense blog.

Before joining the firm, Evan clerked for the Honorable F. Herbert Gruendel of the Connecticut Appellate Court.

  • University of Connecticut School of Law (Juris Doctor)
    • Connecticut Law Review, CONNtemplations Editor
  • Trinity College (Bachelors, with honors)
    • B.A., Russian Studies
    • President's Fellow in the Department of Modern Languages and Literature

  • State of Connecticut
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut

Selected as a Rising Star to the Connecticut Super Lawyers list from 2013 to 2023

Robinson+Cole Pro Bono Service Award Recipient, 2014

Connecticut Law Tribune, recognized in 2016 New Leaders in the Law Yearbook

Named to the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV) First 100 Plus Class of 2019 for demonstrating leadership and commitment to improving the lives of domestic violence survivors throughout Connecticut

American Planning Association
Amicus Curie Committee (2026)
Immediate Past Chair of Planning and Law Division (2021)
Chair of Planning and Law Division (2019 - 2020)
CM Law Credit Task Force (2020)
Chair, Law Content Review Committee (2019 - 2020)
Case Law Digest Advisory Committee of Planning & Law Division (2019 - Present)
Chair-Elect of Planning and Law Division (2017 - 2018)
Secretary/Treasurer of Planning and Law Division (2014 - 2016)
Education & Outreach Committee of Planning and Law Division (2012 - 2014)

American Planning Association, Connecticut Chapter
Member, Executive Board (2021 - present)
Co-Chair, Program Committee (2021 - present)
Government Affairs Committee (2016 - present)

Connecticut Bar Association
Planning & Zoning Section (2011 - Present)
Planning & Zoning Section, Co-chair (2024-2026)
Planning & Zoning Section, Secretary (2021 - Present)
Planning & Zoning Section, Legislative Liaison (2020 - 2021)
Planning & Zoning Section, Executive Committee (2019 - 2021)
Young Lawyers Section, Chair of Planning & Zoning Committee (2014 - 2015)
Young Lawyers Section, Chair of Municipal Law Committee (2012 - 2014)
Young Lawyers Section, Executive Committee (2012 - 2015)

Connecticut Bar Foundation James W. Cooper Fellow
American Bar Association
Section of State and Local Government Law (2011 - present)

Owners' Counsel of America
Affiliate Member (2018 - 2019)

Oliver Ellsworth American Inn of Court
Barrister (2012 - 2015)

Camp Courant
Chair, Development Committee
Board of Directors
Former Advisory Board

University of Connecticut School of Law
Former Alumni Mentor

Children's Law Center of Connecticut, Inc.

Experience


Religious Land Use Litigation: Cemetery

Defended municipality in federal lawsuit filed by church seeking to develop ninety acres of property in rural community as a religious cemetery. Prevailed on several claims at the summary judgment stage.

Religious Land Use Litigation: Soup Kitchen + Food Pantry

Negotiated a favorable settlement to allow a Norwich organization to operate a soup kitchen and food pantry which serves hundreds of individuals daily. Represented client in zoning applications and in three federal lawsuits after applications were denied by zoning agencies.

Read More

Land Use - Zoning: Food Pantry

Successfully argued before Connecticut Appellate Court a zoning appeal involving a planning and zoning commission’s issuance of a special permit to a Greenwich, Connecticut food pantry serving those less fortunate.



Publications


Legal Update: New Laws to Promote Affordable Housing Development teaser
December 3, 2025

Legal Update: New Laws to Promote Affordable Housing Development

June 2023

Recreational Marijuana in the Land of Steady Habits: How Towns in Connecticut are Zoning for Recreational Cannabis Use

Connecticut Planning, a quarterly magazine issued by the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association (CCAPA)

The legislation that legalized cannabis use in Connecticut “…also empowered the state’s municipalities to regulate adult recreational cannabis establishments through local zoning codes or ordinances.” The authors surveyed the state’s 169 municipalities to identify regulatory trends and varying approaches taken by communities across the state. There are at least 90 municipalities that permit some form of cannabis establishments, with 72 of them having enacted their own regulations. Evan, Ryan and Chris examine and report how municipalities are dealing with related issues including where establishments are allowed, permitting and procedural considerations, distance separation requirements, security and odor issues, and visibility of products. Evan serves as CCAPA’s Program Committee Chair and is a member of the Executive Board. View the article.

March 4, 2022

Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Zoning Enabling Act Permits Planned Development Districts

Case Law Digest, an online publication of the American Planning Association’s Planning & Law Division

The Digest presents summaries of recent federal and state court decisions addressing issues at the intersection of planning and law, with takeaway lessons to assist planners and land use attorneys in their practice. Evan’s article takes a close look at Tillman v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Shelton, 341 Conn. 117 (2021). The case considered whether the Connecticut Zoning Enabling Act authorizes municipalities to permit planned development district (PDDs). A PDD is a zoning tool that is generally used to permit a mix of uses and dimensional elements that may not otherwise be allowed in a standard zoning district. The Supreme Court upheld the use of PDDs as flexible zoning techniques. Evan is the immediate Past Chair of the Planning & Law Division. View the article.

Legal Update: New Laws to Promote Affordable Housing Development teaser
December 3, 2025

Legal Update: New Laws to Promote Affordable Housing Development

June 2023

Recreational Marijuana in the Land of Steady Habits: How Towns in Connecticut are Zoning for Recreational Cannabis Use

Connecticut Planning, a quarterly magazine issued by the Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association (CCAPA)

The legislation that legalized cannabis use in Connecticut “…also empowered the state’s municipalities to regulate adult recreational cannabis establishments through local zoning codes or ordinances.” The authors surveyed the state’s 169 municipalities to identify regulatory trends and varying approaches taken by communities across the state. There are at least 90 municipalities that permit some form of cannabis establishments, with 72 of them having enacted their own regulations. Evan, Ryan and Chris examine and report how municipalities are dealing with related issues including where establishments are allowed, permitting and procedural considerations, distance separation requirements, security and odor issues, and visibility of products. Evan serves as CCAPA’s Program Committee Chair and is a member of the Executive Board. View the article.

March 4, 2022

Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Zoning Enabling Act Permits Planned Development Districts

Case Law Digest, an online publication of the American Planning Association’s Planning & Law Division

The Digest presents summaries of recent federal and state court decisions addressing issues at the intersection of planning and law, with takeaway lessons to assist planners and land use attorneys in their practice. Evan’s article takes a close look at Tillman v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Shelton, 341 Conn. 117 (2021). The case considered whether the Connecticut Zoning Enabling Act authorizes municipalities to permit planned development district (PDDs). A PDD is a zoning tool that is generally used to permit a mix of uses and dimensional elements that may not otherwise be allowed in a standard zoning district. The Supreme Court upheld the use of PDDs as flexible zoning techniques. Evan is the immediate Past Chair of the Planning & Law Division. View the article.

Legal Update: New CT Zoning Laws Look to Increase Housing Diversity and Affordability teaser
June 11, 2021

Legal Update: New CT Zoning Laws Look to Increase Housing Diversity and Affordability

Legal Update: Executive Order to Address Zoning Barriers to Re-opening Restaurants and Retail (COVID-19 Coronavirus) teaser
May 14, 2020

Legal Update: Executive Order to Address Zoning Barriers to Re-opening Restaurants and Retail (COVID-19 Coronavirus)

Legal Update: COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts on Land Use and Zoning (COVID-19 Coronavirus) teaser
May 12, 2020

Legal Update: COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts on Land Use and Zoning (COVID-19 Coronavirus)

March 24, 2020

No RLUIPA Violation in Religious Ballfield Case

Case Law Digest, an online publication of the American Planning Association’s Planning & Law Division

The article addresses a 2019 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, which affirmed a lower court’s summary judgment that found that the City of Kirkwood, Missouri did not violate the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) when it approved a lighting plan for a baseball stadium subject to conditions that allegedly deprived the field of meaningful use at night. View the article.  The Eighth Circuit’s decision is available here.

October 2019

Avoiding and Defending Against RLUIPA Claims

"Government Practice” special issue of Practical Law’s The Journal. © 2019 Thomson Reuters

The feature article explains how municipalities can effectively avoid and defend against RLUIPA claims. In particular, it provides an overview of regulation of religious land use, examines claims made against municipalities under RLUIPA, describes RLUIPA’s safe harbor provision, and offers guidance on counseling municipal officials on RLUIPA’s requirements.

June 7, 2018

Inverse Condemnation: Asserting the Ripeness in Federal Courts

Practical Law

The Practice Note provides considerations to government counsel on asserting the ripeness defense in Fifth Amendment takings or inverse condemnation claims. The Note discusses the Williamson County exhaustion and finality requirements, the futility exception, and procedural aspects of asserting the defense in a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. View article here.



Legal Update: New CT Zoning Laws Look to Increase Housing Diversity and Affordability teaser
June 11, 2021

Legal Update: New CT Zoning Laws Look to Increase Housing Diversity and Affordability

Legal Update: Executive Order to Address Zoning Barriers to Re-opening Restaurants and Retail (COVID-19 Coronavirus) teaser
May 14, 2020

Legal Update: Executive Order to Address Zoning Barriers to Re-opening Restaurants and Retail (COVID-19 Coronavirus)

Legal Update: COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts on Land Use and Zoning (COVID-19 Coronavirus) teaser
May 12, 2020

Legal Update: COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts on Land Use and Zoning (COVID-19 Coronavirus)

March 24, 2020

No RLUIPA Violation in Religious Ballfield Case

Case Law Digest, an online publication of the American Planning Association’s Planning & Law Division

The article addresses a 2019 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, which affirmed a lower court’s summary judgment that found that the City of Kirkwood, Missouri did not violate the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) when it approved a lighting plan for a baseball stadium subject to conditions that allegedly deprived the field of meaningful use at night. View the article.  The Eighth Circuit’s decision is available here.

October 2019

Avoiding and Defending Against RLUIPA Claims

"Government Practice” special issue of Practical Law’s The Journal. © 2019 Thomson Reuters

The feature article explains how municipalities can effectively avoid and defend against RLUIPA claims. In particular, it provides an overview of regulation of religious land use, examines claims made against municipalities under RLUIPA, describes RLUIPA’s safe harbor provision, and offers guidance on counseling municipal officials on RLUIPA’s requirements.

June 7, 2018

Inverse Condemnation: Asserting the Ripeness in Federal Courts

Practical Law

The Practice Note provides considerations to government counsel on asserting the ripeness defense in Fifth Amendment takings or inverse condemnation claims. The Note discusses the Williamson County exhaustion and finality requirements, the futility exception, and procedural aspects of asserting the defense in a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment. View article here.


Events


Past

Annual Legal Update and Q&A Session

Jun 7 2024
American Planning Association Connecticut Chapter Hot Topics in Land Use Law & Practice 2024
Past

Statewide Planning - the Draft 2025-2030 Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut

Apr 5 2024
APA Connecticut Chapter
Past

Annual Legal Update and Q&A Session

Jun 7 2024
American Planning Association Connecticut Chapter Hot Topics in Land Use Law & Practice 2024
Past

Statewide Planning - the Draft 2025-2030 Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut

Apr 5 2024
APA Connecticut Chapter
Past

Zoning Appeals for Real Property Lawyers

Mar 15 2024
Fairfield County Bar Association Real Estate Committee
Past

A Planner’s Primer on Adaptive Reuse Incentives

Feb 26 2024
Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association (CCAPA)
Past

A Planner’s Primer on Adaptive Reuse Incentives

Feb 26 2024
Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association (CCAPA)
Past

CT Farmlink for Planners

Feb 2 2024
American Planning Association Connecticut Chapter
Past

Zoning Appeals for Real Property Lawyers

Mar 15 2024
Fairfield County Bar Association Real Estate Committee
Past

A Planner’s Primer on Adaptive Reuse Incentives

Feb 26 2024
Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association (CCAPA)
Past

A Planner’s Primer on Adaptive Reuse Incentives

Feb 26 2024
Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association (CCAPA)
Past

CT Farmlink for Planners

Feb 2 2024
American Planning Association Connecticut Chapter

News


December 23, 2025

Evan Seeman Appointed to the American Planning Association’s Amicus Curiae Committee

Real Estate + Development group partner Evan Seeman has been appointed to serve a one-year term on the American Planning Association’s (APA) Amicus Curiae Committee, effective January 1, 2026. The committee works to advance planning through the judicial process by filing “friend of the court” briefs in state and federal courts in select cases of national importance. Evan previously served as chair of the APA’s Planning & Law Division and currently serves on the APA’s Case Law Digest Advisory Committee of Planning & Law Division, as co-chair of the APA Connecticut Chapter’s (APA CT) Program Committee, and as a member of APA CT’s Executive Board and Government Affairs Committee.

August 28, 2024

Evan Seeman Elected as Co-Chair of the Connecticut Bar Association's Planning and Zoning Section

January 11, 2024

Evan Seeman Discusses History and Impact of Camp Courant on MetroHartford Alliance’s Pulse of the Region Podcast

December 23, 2025

Evan Seeman Appointed to the American Planning Association’s Amicus Curiae Committee

Real Estate + Development group partner Evan Seeman has been appointed to serve a one-year term on the American Planning Association’s (APA) Amicus Curiae Committee, effective January 1, 2026. The committee works to advance planning through the judicial process by filing “friend of the court” briefs in state and federal courts in select cases of national importance. Evan previously served as chair of the APA’s Planning & Law Division and currently serves on the APA’s Case Law Digest Advisory Committee of Planning & Law Division, as co-chair of the APA Connecticut Chapter’s (APA CT) Program Committee, and as a member of APA CT’s Executive Board and Government Affairs Committee.

August 28, 2024

Evan Seeman Elected as Co-Chair of the Connecticut Bar Association's Planning and Zoning Section

January 11, 2024

Evan Seeman Discusses History and Impact of Camp Courant on MetroHartford Alliance’s Pulse of the Region Podcast

October 26, 2023

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2023 Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers
June 8, 2023

Evan Seeman, Ryan Hoyler and Christopher Schaut Discuss Zoning for Recreational Cannabis Use in Connecticut Planning Article

Connecticut Planning
December 22, 2022

Robinson+Cole Elects Five New Partners

October 11, 2022

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2022 Super Lawyers®

March 4, 2022

Evan Seeman Authors APA Article on CT Supreme Court Ruling on Zoning Enabling Act

APA Journal Case Law Digest
February 8, 2022

Evan Seeman Authors "CCAPA Program Updates" Column in Connecticut Planning Quarterly Magazine

Connecticut Planning

October 26, 2023

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2023 Super Lawyers®

Super Lawyers
June 8, 2023

Evan Seeman, Ryan Hoyler and Christopher Schaut Discuss Zoning for Recreational Cannabis Use in Connecticut Planning Article

Connecticut Planning
December 22, 2022

Robinson+Cole Elects Five New Partners

October 11, 2022

Robinson+Cole Lawyers Recognized in 2022 Super Lawyers®

March 4, 2022

Evan Seeman Authors APA Article on CT Supreme Court Ruling on Zoning Enabling Act

APA Journal Case Law Digest
February 8, 2022

Evan Seeman Authors "CCAPA Program Updates" Column in Connecticut Planning Quarterly Magazine

Connecticut Planning

RLUIPA Defense Blog


Below is an excerpt of the RLUIPA Defense Blog posts authored by Evan.

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies RLUIPA Substantial Burden Inquiry

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently clarified how to determine whether a substantial burden on religious exercise exists for purposes of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The case involves Vision Warriors Church, a “non-profit ministry that seeks to provide a faith-based community for men recovering from addiction” and helps them to be “better Disciples of Christ, fathers, husbands, leaders, and friends” through a residential program involving weekly services and faith-based meetings. The Court reversed and remanded the District Court’s earlier decision dismissing the RLUIPA claim but affirmed the case in all other respects. Vision Warriors sought to operate its ministry on two residential parcels of about 6.5 acres in Cherokee County, Georgia. Happy Acres Mission Transit Center previously owned and operated the property as a dormitory with a mission “to promote the recreation, health, safety, welfare, common benefit and enjoyment of missionaries and to help further aid their religious and spiritual beliefs and goals.” Happy Acres offered a range of activities for up to 55 people, including services, conferences, retreats, and banquets.  It also temporarily hosted up to six families at a time at no charge.  In 2016, Happy Acres decided to sell the property, and obtained written confirmation from County planning staff that temporary housing could continue at the property as a legal nonconforming use. However, planning staff stated that “if the previous tenants were missionaries and the new tenants are planned to be recovering drug addicts, then[n] a different zoning will be required.” In 2017, Vision Warriors entered into a letter of intent to purchase the property. On multiple occasions, planning staff again confirmed the property’s use for temporary housing subject to Vision Warriors obtaining a Tenant Occupancy Change (TOC) permit. The then zoning administrator stated, “I am the interpreter of land use, and I assure you this meets Vision Warriors[’] use.” Vision Warriors purchased the property, obtained a TOC permit, and began to operate a facility housing men formerly in recovery centers for drug and alcohol abuse.  Following neighbor complaints in 2018, the County revoked Vision Warriors’ TOC permit because temporary shelters were not permitted in residential zones. The County took the position that planning staff had previously issued the TOC permit in error. Vision Warriors unsuccessfully appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Cherokee County Board of Commissioners. Thereafter, the County amended its zoning code to allow religious institutions to have temporary shelters and transitional housing by special use permit if the facilities were provided free of cost. Vision Warriors submitted a special use permit application and, in the alternative, sought to rezone its property to another zone to allow it to operate a dormitory for up to 55 residents. The County Planning Commission denied both the special use permit and rezone request, which the Board of Commissioners upheld. Vision Warriors sued in federal court, alleging violations of the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), RLUIPA, the Fourteenth Amendment, and state law. The District Court dismissed Vision Warriors’ RLUIPA claim for failure to demonstrate a substantial burden on religious exercise and then granted summary judgment to the County on all other claims. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the RLUIPA dismissal but otherwise affirmed the District Court’s decision. As for the RLUIPA claim, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the District Court applied the wrong standard in assessing Vision Warriors’ substantial burden claim. That is, the District Court improperly determined that Vision Warriors had to show that it could not use the property in any way in accordance with its religious beliefs. The County argued that Vision Warriors could not establish that it was completely banned from using its property for religious exercise because Vision Warriors could still house up to eight unrelated members. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, finding that Vision Warriors could allege a substantial burden without shutting its doors entirely. The Court stated that its “substantial burden inquiry does not require a Plaintiff to establish an ‘unmet’ religious need in the community, and its religious exercise need not be completely hamstrung to meet the substantial burden threshold.” Vision Warriors also alleged that the County had intentionally discriminated against disabled persons in violation of the FHA and ADA. It also alleged violations under those federal statutes based on the County’s refusal to make reasonable accommodations. The intentional discrimination claims failed because there was no direct or circumstantial evidence to support them. There were no expressly discriminatory comments from County officials or neighbors in opposition. The closest thing to circumstantial evidence were comments made by a Commissioner who told opponents he would vote to deny the proposed use (although not expressly based on disability). The Court, however, stated that the Commissioner’s comments were probative of only one member’s motives and could not be imputed to the rest of the agency. The Court rejected the reasonable accommodation claims on the ground that Vision Warriors failed to establish that the accommodation was truly necessary to alleviate the effects of disability. Vision Warriors did not explain why the requested 55 members “are therapeutically more meaningful as opposed to the eight members it is legally permitted to house at any time.”  Nor did Vision Warriors offer evidence demonstrating how a facility with only eight people would not be economically viable. Vision Warriors’ “class of one” Equal Protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment also failed. According to the Court, Happy Acres was not a similarly situated comparator because the County knew that Vision Warriors sought to operate a temporary shelter but had no knowledge that Happy Acres had actually done so. In other words, Happy Acres’ temporary shelter was operated in secret, so the County could not be penalized for what it did not know.

Visit Blog

Eleventh Circuit Finds City of Mobile Violated Religious Freedom Laws

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently considered a long-running religious land use dispute involving the Thai Meditation Association of Alabama (TMAA) and the city of Mobile, Alabama. The dispute involves TMAA’s desire to convert a property zoned for residential use into a religious meditation center. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that the City violated the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause and the Alabama Constitution’s Religious Freedom Amendment (ARFA) when it denied TMAA’s zoning application. However, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s granting of summary judgment on TMAA’s substantial burden claim under the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). TMAA is a religious organization belonging to the Dhammakaya school of Buddhism, whose “purpose is the teaching and research into growth and development of mind and spirit through meditation and expanding the knowledge of Buddhism.” In 2007, TMAA operated out of a converted house in a residential neighborhood. That operation was short-lived as TMAA was forced to relocate following neighbor complaints and TMAA’s inability to obtain zoning authorization for that location.  TMAA next moved to its present location in a shopping center located on a commercial street. According to TMAA, the shopping center was less than ideal, as it precluded congregants from religious meditation due to the noisy environment and cramped accommodations for its religion. TMAA, therefore, searched for a new location where it could practice its religion, including meditation. In 2015, TMAA purchased a property in the City’s R-1 (residential) zoning district. Under the City’s zoning code, the R-1 zone allows residential use as-of-right and certain religious uses subject to “planning approval” by the Planning Commission. Before purchasing the property, TMAA participated in pre-application meetings with City officials and received positive feedback on its proposed religious use of the property. However, this changed once TMAA formally submitted its zoning application and public opposition manifested. Public opposition included the Buddhist character of the proposed use, with some members of the public questioning whether TMAA’s proposed use was religious in nature. Others objected due to concerns about compatibility and traffic in the residential neighborhood. In the end, the Planning Commission denied TMAA’s application, the City Council denied TMAA’s appeal, and litigation ensued. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the City regarding TMAA’s RLUIPA substantial burden, First Amendment Free Exercise, and ARFA claims; TMAA appealed. Beginning with the substantial burden claim, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that there remained genuine issues of material fact requiring further proceedings. For example, factual disputes existed about whether there were alternative sites for TMAA to operate its meditation center. The City contends that TMAA owns a 100-acre parcel that would be a suitable alternative location.  TMAA, through its land use expert, opined that its 100-acre parcel was unsuitable for that proposed use. Additionally, there are factual disputes regarding whether the Planning Commission deviated from its typical procedures, including allegedly editing meeting minutes to obscure the true reason for denial. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the City on this claim. Next, the Court affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the City on TMAA’s Free Exercise claim, concluding that the City’s R-1 zoning process is neutral and generally applicable, involving only rational basis review. The City’s alleged interests in traffic safety and zoning are “rationally related to a legitimate government interest.” Therefore, permissible governmental concerns under this standard of review. Finally, the Court reversed the District Court’s determination that the City did not violate ARFA. ARFA is similar to RLUIPA’s substantial burden provision, except that it requires a religious land user to demonstrate the existence of a burden on religious exercise, but not a substantial burden. If a burden on religious exercise is established, the government must then satisfy strict scrutiny review (i.e., that the burden is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling government interest). Unlike RLUIPA, a plaintiff may be able to show a burden on religious exercise even where the burden is only incidental or there is a mere inconvenience on religious exercise. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the City’s denial of TMAA’s zoning permit caused TMAA to at least suffer some burden. It next concluded that the City’s stated concerns regarding traffic and “preserving the character of the property and the surrounding neighborhood,” did not rise to the level of compelling government interests. According to the Court, “vague, generalize[d] invocations of governments interests in ‘zoning’ and ‘neighborhood character’ are insufficient to carry the government’s burden,” and the traffic concerns were unsubstantiated in the record. Based on the above, the Eleventh Circuit directed the District Court to enter judgment for TMAA on this claim. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision is available here. *This post was co-authored by Robinson+Cole Real Estate + Development Group Lawyer Eden (Hunter) Yerby

Visit Blog

Massachusetts’ SJC Rules RV Camp Protected by Dover Amendment

The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts recently ruled that the RV Camp proposed by Hume Lake Christian Camps’ (Hume) was predominantly religious in nature and therefore qualified for protection under the Dover Amendment.  Similar to the federal Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act, the Dover Amendment is a Massachusetts law that limits a municipality’s ability to restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes.  This means that a religious group may be able to override certain zoning regulations if the group’s proposed use serves a predominately religious purpose. Hume, founded in 1956, is a nondenominational, conservative, evangelical Christian organization that unites different denominations sharing an evangelical Christian faith.  It hosts camps in California and Massachusetts to “evangelize the world.”   In Monterey, Massachusetts, Hume owns and operates a campground of over 400 acres, where it hosts summer and winter program camps. Activities at the camp include “religious instruction, twice-daily chapel sessions, performances by worship bands, and recreational activities such as canoeing, basketball, hiking, and ax throwing.” Additionally, Hume rents out its facilities for guest retreats. However, groups that wish to use the grounds must have beliefs that align with Hume’s and must also allow Hume to give a presentation about its ministry.   Hume’s staff, including seasonal employees, are required to sign Hume’s statement of religious beliefs.  Counselors and food service assistants must also agree “with the theological positions, philosophy, and policies of [Hume].”  Although Hume’s campers do not have to attest to their religious faith, they must attend all camp sessions, including chapel sessions. The dispute at issue arose out of Hume’s proposal to build an RV camp on its grounds. The RV camp would house a new family camp program, working volunteers, and seasonal summer staff, and would be within walking distance from Hume’s permanent facilities. The Planning Board of Monterey rejected Hume’s site plan application due to a zoning bylaw prohibiting mobile home parks in all districts. On appeal, the Land Court concluded that accommodations for family attendees served a predominately religious purpose and was subject to Dover Amendment protection but housing for staff and volunteers was not. The SJC agreed with the Land Court that housing for family attendees at the RV camp would advance Hume’s religious mission, since the religious purposes exemption covers accessory uses that are not inherently religious, but whose purpose is to aid a system of faith and worship. Accordingly, even though staying in an RV camp is not a religious activity, allowing families to attend Hume’s religious programming together satisfies the religious purposes test. Next, the SJC reversed the Land Court’s determination that the residences for staff and volunteers were not exempt under the Dover Amendment.  According to the SJC, housing volunteers and seasonal workers at the RV camp help to carry out Hume’s religious goals because volunteers and seasonal workers assist in operating Hume’s programs and maintaining Hume’s property. Lastly, the SJC rejected the Planning Board’s argument that Hume’s primary purpose is recreation, not religious practice, due to offering activities like canoeing and ax throwing and permitting “nonbelievers” to attend the camp. In response, the court reiterated that “the religious purposes exemption is not limited to uses that are typical of or inherent to religious institutions.” Additionally, the court noted that Hume’s programs require attendance at two chapel sessions a day along with religious instruction. Instead, recreational activities are offered to boost camp attendance and engagement which promote Hume’s religious goals. Furthermore, allowing “nonbelievers” to attend the camp allows for further opportunity to evangelize.  Accordingly, the Court concluded that the RV camp advances Hume’s religious mission and is an exempt use under the Dover Amendment. The decision in Hume Lake Christian Camps, Inc. v. Plan Bd. of Monterey is available here. *This post was co-authored by Joy Vincenzo, Summer Associate at Robinson+Cole. Joy is not admitted to practice law.

Visit Blog

Fourth Circuit: Church Seeking to Operate as Brewery or Farm Winery Did Not State RLUIPA Claim

The Fourth Circuit has ruled against the Alive Church of the Nazarene’s claims that Prince William County, Virginia, violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLIUPA) by denying the Church the opportunity to worship on its 17-acre property before the Church complied with relevant zoning regulations. Alive Church of the Nazarene, Inc. v. Prince William Cty., Va., 59 F.4th 92 (4th. Cir. 2023). The property in question was zoned agricultural, for which the County required a special use permit for religious use. The prior owners of the property obtained such a permit to construct a 40,000-square-foot house of worship for religious purposes; however, the permit required the owner to install costly stormwater monitoring, among other things, prior to the permit going into effect. The Church attempted to circumvent the special use permit requirements by holding gatherings on the property as a farm winery or brewery and intended to make nonalcoholic cider using fruit harvested from its fruit trees. However, the County responded that while this use category would permit religious gatherings, the Church would have to obtain a license from the state liquor commission to do so. While the Church began to venture down this path, it ultimately changed course after determining that obtaining a liquor license would violate its sincerely held religious belief against the sale or promotion of alcohol. The County took the position that without the state liquor license, or implementation of the previously-issued special permit, the property could not be used for religious gatherings. The Church sued in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging that the County had violated, inter alia, RLUIPA’s equal terms, nondiscrimination, and substantial burden provisions. The district court tossed the suit after ruling that the Church had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Church appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  The Fourth Circuit agreed with the district court and affirmed the decision. The Court held that the Church’s equal terms provision claim failed because the Church could not identify a similarly situated comparator in the subject zone. The agricultural zone allowed 14 uses by-right and 35 nonagricultural uses by special use permit, including religious institutions. By-right uses in the zone included farm wineries, limited-license breweries, and agricultural operations, including agritourism activities. The Court concluded that the Church had failed to identify a comparator and considered the purpose of the agricultural zone – to “encourage farming and other agricultural pursuits.” According to the Court, religious institutions are similarly situated to the other 35 uses allowed by special use permit because they “are not agricultural and do not advance the [Agricultural District’s] purpose.” Even though farm wineries and limited-license breweries are allowed to host special events, the events further agricultural activity by enhancing the ability to market and sell product. By contrast, allowing religious institutions to host gatherings does not promote farming. The Church’s nondiscrimination claim failed because the Church did not allege religious animus – a required element – in its complaint. The Church simply pointed to what it perceived to be differential treatment under the zoning regulations, but did not claim that any of the applicable regulations had been enacted with discriminatory intent. Finally, as for the Church’s substantial burden claim, the Fourth Circuit held that any alleged burden was self-imposed by the Church when it acquired the land – with the land zoned for agricultural use, the Church had no reasonable expectation of religious land use without complying either with the terms of the special permit that had issued or following the requirements to become a brewery or farm winery. The Fourth Circuit also held that the Church’s claim failed for the independent reason that the burdens alleged were not absolute; had the Church complied with the conditions in the permit, it would be permitted to hold religious services on the property. The Church’s claims under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Peaceable Assembly Clauses and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause similarly failed. The Fourth Circuit’s decision is available here.

Visit Blog

Madison, Wisconsin’s Denial of Athletic Field Lights Upheld Over Claims of Religious Discrimination

On December 30, 2022, a district court dismissed a Catholic high school’s RLUIPA challenge, granting summary judgment on all claims in favor of the City of Madison, Wisconsin and various other city officials (the City). As ruled by the court, the City did not discriminate against Edgewood High School of the Sacred Heart, Inc. on the basis of religion when it denied Edgewood’s latest conditional use permit application for outdoor lighting at the school’s athletic fields. Edgewood’s attempt to install outdoor lighting in order to use its own fields at night, instead of using a field located a 15-minute drive east of its campus, proved unfruitful. The court first ruled that Edgewood could not establish a violation of RLUIPA’s equal terms provision.  In the crucial absence of any evidence that the City treated a similarly situated secular school more favorably (i.e., by allowing outdoor lighting for athletic fields), Edgewood could not establish that it was discriminated against on the basis of religion. The court noted the complete dearth of evidence that the City acted with religious animus.  Rather, in upholding the Plan Commission’s denial of Edgewood’s conditional use permit application, the Common Council relied on the neighbors and neighborhood associations’ testimony and sound studies. These studies showed that the proposed addition of lights and sound equipment would greatly increase the noise levels, which were already deemed to be excessive and disturbing. The court agreed that the Common Council’s reference to noise and light disturbances, in addition to the potential detrimental effect on property values and the existing doubts regarding Edgewood’s ability to comply with suggested limits, constituted substantial evidence supporting the Common Council’s ultimate decision on appeal.     Edgewood’s substantial burden claim fared no better.  The court stated: “Even if the court were to assume that night football (as opposed to a variety of sports conducted in gym classes and at practices) is an important element of Edgewood’s religious exercise, which is certainly not a given, plaintiff offers no evidence that it is substantially burdened by having to play night home games at a different field.” The court also rejected Edgewood’s free speech and free exercise claims. Beyond the resolution of the RLUIPA issues, the permitting background leading to Edgewood’s filing of the complaint should also serve as a cautionary tale for both religious and secular institutions. When the City of Madison enacted Campus-Institutional Districts in 2013, existing educational institutions were given the choice to adopt a Master Plan or remain subject to their existing zoning district. Edgewood chose to participate and filed its Master Plan in 2014. While the Master Plan identified the existing athletic field use as an “athletic field owned by Edgewood High School [and u]sed for team practices, physical education classes,” it missed the opportunity to expand the description to anticipate greater use of the field. For instance, it could have described the field as a “major event facility” like UW-Madison [a secular school] had done in its own Master Plan for its tennis stadium or considered adding the possibility of the field’s expansion in any proposed developments description in the Master Plan. This unfortunately proved to be a costly error for Edgewood, as evidenced in the court’s decision.     The decision in Edgewood High School of the Sacred Heart, Inc. v. City of Madison, No. 21-CV-118-WMC, 2022 WL 18024626 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 30, 2022) is available here.

Visit Blog

Court Rules Meriden, CT’s Zoning Regulations Discriminatory

A district court has ruled that the City of Meriden, Connecticut (the City) discriminated against Omar Islamic Center Inc. following the City’s denial of the Islamic Center’s application to move its mosque to another location. The Islamic Center (the Center) outgrew is prior location – a 1,200 square foot space above a pizza restaurant in a neighboring city – and was unable to accommodate the members of the congregation, the number of students interested in its Quran and Islamic Studies classes, and the requirements that men and women separate for prayer and for ritual washing before prayer. The Center found a new site for its mosque at 999 Research Parkway, in the City’s M4 Planned Industrial District. But its special permit application was denied. On cross motions for summary judgment, the court held that the City’s zoning regulations violated the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses by treating comparable secular uses better than religious uses. While the case was pending, the City amended its zoning regulations in an attempt to moot the religious group’s claims. The court sided with the City that the amendment rendered moot the declaratory relief sought by the Islamic Center – a declaration that the zoning regulations were facially discriminatory – because declaratory relief applies only prospectively.  However, the court determined that the regulatory amendment did not render moot the Islamic Center’s claims for damages. The court concluded that the Islamic Center was entitled to damages incurred as a result of the City’s facially-discriminatory regulations. It then held that the City’s zoning regulations were discriminatory because they allowed hotels, motels, convention centers, theaters, different types of shops, stores, and service establishments (bakeries, restaurants, and theatres), as well as institutional, public, and municipal buildings to operate as-of-right in the district, but required a place of worship to obtain a special permit in order to do so. The City, however, prevailed on the state law Connecticut Religious Freedom Act (CFRA) claim. Because the construction of a house of worship does not constitute religious exercise under the CFRA, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the City. Finally, the court denied summary judgment on all RLUIPA claims as there was a factual dispute as to whether the Islamic Center had a sufficient property interest under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act statute to proceed. The decision in Omar Islamic Center Inc. v. City of Meriden (D. Conn. 2022) is available here.

Visit Blog

Federal Court Dismisses RLUIPA Challenge to Missouri Emergency Public Health Orders

An interesting decision regarding RLUIPA and COVID-19 emergency public health orders was recently issued by a federal court in Missouri.  Recall that in the land use context, RLUIPA applies only to “land use regulations.”  The statute defines land use regulations as “a zoning or landmarking law, or the application of such law, that limits or restricts a claimant’s use or development of land (including a structure affixed to land), if the claimant has an ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or other property interest in the regulated land or a contract or option to acquire such an interest.”  The statute also provides that it is to be “construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.”  Despite the statute’s broad protection, the court in Abundant Life Baptist Church of Lee’s Summit, Missouri v. Jackson County, Missouri dismissed the church’s RLUIPA claims challenging emergency public health orders which restricted large gatherings, including church gatherings.  The court ruled that RLUIPA did not apply because the emergency orders were not “land use regulations” and therefore not subject to RLUIPA.  Instead, the court concluded that the orders regulate “conduct,” not “land use,” and dismissed the church’s claims.  Some of the church’s First Amendment Free Exercise Clause claims survived for another day because those claims can challenge any governmental law or action, not just land use regulations.

Visit Blog

St. Pete Beach, Florida Enjoined from Prohibiting Church’s Beach Parking Lot Evangelism

A federal court in Florida recently ruled that Pass-A-Grille Beach Community Church, Inc. (Church) was likely to prevail on its RLUIPA substantial burden claim challenging the City of St. Pete Beach’s enforcement of parking regulations.  Since 1957, the Church has allowed the general public to use its parking lot free of charge to access the beach.  According to the Church, providing free beach parking is part of its religious exercise in that free parking helps to attract people to the Church and affords the Church a “unique opportunity to serve the community and reach out to people who may not otherwise come to the Church.”  Over the years, the Church’s youth group decided to evangelize, pray for, and seek donations for their mission trips from people who parked in the Church’s lot.  Some of the Church’s neighbors were unhappy and complained to the City about the Church’s parking practices.  In 2016, the City took the position that its land use ordinances prohibited the Church from allowing anyone who is not a “customer” or “patron” of the Church from parking in the Church’s lot. On January 26, 2021, the court granted the Church’s motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined the City from enforcing its land use ordinance “to prevent or attempt to prevent the Church from continuing to allow the general public to use its parking lot, soliciting charitable donations on the lot, and evangelizing those who park in its lot.” According to the court, “there is no question the Church has established a substantial burden” under RLUIPA.  “Under the City’s current interpretation of its parking ordinances, the Church is not permitted to allow people to use its own parking lot – for free or for a fee – unless people are parking there for a ‘legitimate church purpose.’  What might constitute a ‘legitimate church purpose’ is up to the City, not the Church.”  The main point of contention between the Church and the City was whether the Church’s religious beliefs were “sincerely” held for the RLUIPA statute to apply or whether the beliefs were manufactured to circumvent the requirements of the City’s land use ordinances.  Relying on Justice Gorsuch’s decision in Yellowbear v. Lampert, 741 F.3d 48 (10th Cir. 2014), the court stated that “the ultimate question presented here is whether the Church is, in essence, seeking to perpetrate a fraud on the Court – whether it actually holds the beliefs it claims to hold regarding its use of its parking lot.” According to the City, the Church’s religious beliefs relating to the use of the parking lot were not sincere because the Church did not always offer free parking.  The court dismissed this argument and noted that a religious group is free to change its mind over the years.  The court stated that the fact that the Church did not offer free parking in the past “does not mean that the Church’s presently stated religious beliefs are not sincere.”  Rather, the court credited the testimony of the Church’s Associate Minister, Jeanne Haemmelmann, who testified that “[t]he Church desires to attract people to the Church so that they can learn about, join in, and support the Church’s ministries.  The Church’s free parking is one of the most effective ways the Church can use the property God has given it to serve the community and attract new people to the Church.” The decision in Pass-A-Grille Beach Community Church, Inc. v. City of St. Pete Beach, Florida (M.D. FL 2021) is available here.  The court’s order entering the preliminary injunction is available here.

Visit Blog

First Circuit Rejects Signs For Jesus’ RLUIPA and Constitutional Appeal

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently found in favor of the Town of Pembroke, New Hampshire regarding the Town’s denial of an application for an electronic sign permit for religious messages.  The Town’s Zoning Board of Adjustment (Board) denied the permit because it believed the sign would “detract from the rural character of the Route 3 corridor” and noted the Town’s interest in maintaining its “quaint little New England village” aesthetic.  Signs for Jesus and Hillside Baptist Church (collectively, the Church) sued the Town after the Board denied a permit to install an electronic sign on Hillside Baptist Church’s property which would transmit messages provided by Signs for Jesus.  According to the Church, the denial of the permit and the Town’s local sign code violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, RLUIPA’s equal terms and substantial burden provisions, and state law.  The First Circuit did not agree.  It affirmed the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment to the Town.  Our post regarding that decision is available here. The Church’s RLUIPA equal terms claim failed because the Church could not identify a similarly situated secular comparator.  It contended that a public school, Pembroke Academy, and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) were comparators because they both had electronic signs in the same zoning district as the Church.  The First Circuit concluded otherwise.  The public school and NHDOT were governmental land uses regulated by the state.  The Town had no power to regulate land uses owned or occupied by the state or school district, so the public school and NHDOT were not valid comparators.  The Court found the Church’s equal protection claim failed for similar reasons. The Church’s substantial burden claim under RLUIPA fared no better.  The First Circuit reiterated the three factors it considers when analyzing substantial burden claims: (a) whether the regulation at issue appears to target religion based on hostility against religion; (b) whether the regulation was imposed on the religious institution arbitrarily, capriciously or unlawfully; and (c) whether local regulators have subjected the religious organization to a process that may appear neutral on its face but in practice is designed to reach a predetermined outcome contrary to the group’s requests. The Church relied on the third factor and argued that the Board prejudged the application before actually denying it at the hearing.  It argued that its application was prejudged because some members of the Board colluded to deny the application after they met with an attorney in advance of the hearing to discuss the Church’s application.  At this meeting, the attorney provided the Board members with a draft motion to deny the application but did not provide an equivalent draft of a motion for approval.  However, a member of the Board testified that the purpose of drafting the motion to deny was to ensure that the Board “knew the motion that we had to make if we were going to deny,” and that he “didn’t know whether we were going to approve or deny [the request] until the end of the meeting.”  There was also evidence that the Board consulted with the lawyer because the Church hired “expensive counsel” who had raised issues of federal law.  The First Circuit sided with the Town: “[T]he fact that the Board had counsel ready is not a basis on which a jury could conclude that the Board improperly prejudged the decision.”  The reason that there was only a draft motion for denial was because a motion for approval would have been simple to draft.  By contrast, a draft motion for denial required the Board to state the reasons for the denial. The First Circuit also found that provisions of the Town’s sign ordinance did not violate free speech protections.  It was not persuaded by the Church’s contention that certain elements of the sign ordinance were content-based, including an exemption for government signage.  The Church also argued that restricting electronic signs to just one zoning district reflected a preference for commercial speech and was therefore content-based.  The Court disagreed.  It concluded that there was nothing to support the Church’s argument that locational rules imposed on churches were a pretext for the Town to regulate the content of speech with respect to the use of electronic signs.  The Town’s sign code provisions satisfied intermediate scruinty.  The Court emphasized the Town’s interest in maintaining its “quaint little New England village” aesthetic.  Finally, the court was not convinced that the sign ordinance vested unbridled discretion in the Town to determine which signs are and are not permitted without narrow, objective and definite criteria. The decision in Signs for Jesus v. Town of Pembroke (1st Cir. 2020) is available here.

Visit Blog

Florida Court Finds RLUIPA Protects Transition Home for Registered Sex Offenders

If you are a municipality defending against a RLUIPA lawsuit, it is generally not a good sign when a court’s memorandum of decision begins with a string of biblical quotes.  Wakulla County Florida experienced this earlier this summer.  When granting a religious group’s motion for a preliminary injunction to operate a transition home, Judge Mark Walker opened his decision by writing: “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison and did not help you?” Matthew 25:44. To which the Lord replied, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”  Id. 25:45.  Scripture teaches that by serving those in need, particularly those shunned by society, one serves the Lord.  See James 2:14-16 (“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds?  Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food.  If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?”). The court went on to find that Wakulla County’s actions in prohibiting City Walk – Urban Mission Inc. (Urban Mission) from operating a transition home for three or more people, including registered sex offenders, violated RLUIPA’s substantial burden provision. Urban Mission’s mission is to serve everyone regardless of their past because “[e]very saint has a past [and] [e]very sinner has a future.”  It seeks to rehabilitate as many individuals as it can by helping them find love, forgiveness, and a new life in Jesus and believes that registered sex offenders are particularly shunned in society and in need of assistance.  The residents are generally in Urban Mission’s program for a year, must abide by house rules, attend religious devotion periods, and abstain from drugs and alcohol.  Residents must also work while there and those who are not able to find a job on their own work at Urban Mission’s thrift store and outreach center in Tallahassee. Urban Mission found a property at 55 Ball Court in Crawfordville, Florida that it wanted to use for a transition home for at least three people at a time.  Prior to leasing the property, Urban Mission conducted zoning due diligence to make sure that its proposed operation would be allowed.  It contacted the County’s planning and zoning department and was told that the transition home would be permitted as a “family care home” and there could be up to 6 unrelated adults at the property.  With this information in-hand, Urban Mission leased the property and operated without issue for a year until neighbors learned that registered sex offenders lived there.  In response to neighbor complaints, the County issued a notice of violation, stating that the operation amounted to a “boardinghouse,” a prohibited use in the subject RR-1 zone.  The Wakulla County Code Enforcement Board upheld the notice of violation and ordered that the property no longer be used as a boardinghouse.  Four months later, the County Board of Commissioners amended the Code by removing “family care homes” and “shelter homes” from principal uses permitted in the zone.  The County issued a notice of repeat violation in February 2020 after it received complaints that the Property was being used as a boardinghouse by three unrelated persons. Urban Mission sued the County asserting violations of the Religious Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the County from enforcing its Land Use Development Code to prohibit operation of the transition home.  The Court granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Urban Mission was likely to succeed on the merits of its substantial burden claim.  The court found the case distinguishable from others in which religious land users could relocate their religious uses to other property.  Of note was the County Director of Planning and Community Development informing Urban Mission that there was nowhere in the County where it could operate its transition house.  The court put it this way: Defendant leaves Plaintiff with a binary chose: either conform its religious exercise and reduce the number of residents in the property by two-thirds, turn away individuals it can help, and evict individuals that it is currently helping; or risk fines and eviction.  Such a burden which cannot be alleviated is not a mere inconvenience; rather, it puts substantial pressure on Plaintiff to change its religious exercise so that it may conform to Defendant’s requirements.  The two-adult limitation, therefore, imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiff’s religious exercise.” According to the court, the County’s actions caused Urban Mission to suffer more than a mere inconvenience because it reduced the number of people Urban Mission could serve by two-thirds and forced Urban Mission to turn away adults who needed help.  The court rejected the County’s alleged compelling interest in furthering the purpose of its zoning regulations in a generalized way.  In order for a local government to satisfy the compelling interest standard it must identify more than a general interest.  In this case, the County had to show why excluding the transition home would somehow further its compelling interest with specific (not generalized) evidence.  The County could not do so. The court’s decision in City Walk – Urban Mission Inc. v. Wakulla County Florida (Northern District of Florida 2020) is available here.

Visit Blog