Share this:

The church began leasing half of a former movie theater in 2004 and, because its use of the site was limited, requested that a real estate agent locate property to accommodate planned growth from its existing 200 to 250 members to 400 members. The real estate agent did not consider undeveloped land, buildings that would accommodate fewer than 400 members, or buildings not within the stated budget, but identified a building on Main Street in the Old Town District. The city has spent significant sums to attract private investment to the District, which is part of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area. The building had been used as a department store and had been vacant, except for limited temporary uses, since 1993.

The church contracted to purchase before consulting the city because the building was in foreclosure and the price was right. After learning that a conditional use permit (CUP) was required, the church closed the purchase, then applied for the CUP. The application was denied based on concerns that Main Street is unique in having a concentration of entertainment businesses and no on-site parking. Additionally, the location of a church would limit issuance of new liquor licenses in the area and inhibit planned development of the area as a tourist destination, and the church would not be required to pay taxes for upkeep of public areas.

The federal trial court affirmed, rejecting claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. The Court held that the denial did not impose a “substantial burden” on religious exercise in violation of the Act; there were other suitable locations outside the three-block Main Street area and the denial was based on factors unique to that area. The court noted that the church has seriously considered several sites in other areas. Analyzing the Act’s prohibition of “discrimination and exclusion,” the court held that the church made a prima facie case that the zoning code was not facially neutral; it requires religious institutions, educational services, and job training services to obtain CUPs to locate in an area, while not requiring CUPs for other membership organizations. The city, however, met its burden of showing that disparate treatment was based on a neutral, generally applicable principle. The court noted that the church planned to conduct a number of accessory uses, such as General Education Development classes, that would independently trigger the CUP requirement, and that churches are unique in having the impact of limiting issuance of liquor licenses.

The ordinance was not gerrymandered to exclude religious uses, but was based on a neutral goal of redeveloping the area for tourism and retail uses. The secular assemblies that exist in the area, including theaters, a dance hall, and a fitness center, promote that goal. The city has rejected organizations such as Untied Way and Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Because the denial was justified under the Act, which codifies Free Exercise principles, the court rejected claims under the First Amendment and under the Arizona Religious Freedom Restoration Act, A.R.S. § 41-1493.01.

Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 2009 WL 230108 (D.AZ 1/30/2009).

The order can be accessed at: http://documents.scribd.com/docs/23npeqj22cyw7mqd400n.pdf  

The Yuma Sun reported on the case at: http://www.yumasun.com/news/zoning_47592___article.html/case_church.html  

This posting is based on an abstract appearing in Planning and Environmental Law (April 2009).