Fed. Dist. Court of VA Denies Motion to Dismiss RLUIPA Claim Brought by Church

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.

Afresh Church alleged that defendants, the City of Winchester, Virginia and Aaron Grigsdale, the director of zoning and inspections for the City, violated Afresh’s rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. (“RLUIPA”). The Afresh building was located in an area of Winchester designated as a “limited industrial district.” Approximately 200 members of the Afresh congregation had met at the building on Sundays since April 2017. The City cited the building owner several times for allowing the church services to be held at the building as the area in which it was located was not zoned for churches. At the time the complaint was filed, the City had filed a summons for civil penalty in the City of Winchester General District Court seeking $2,200 in fines from the owner for violations of the zoning ordinance.

In its motion to dismiss, the City contends that Afresh did not have standing to sue and also that Afresh failed to state a claim for a RLUIPA violation. Specifically, the City alleged that Afresh did not actually have a leasehold interest in the building at the time it filed its complaint. The court noted that while the complaint did not mention a written lease, Afresh submitted a copy of a written lease to the court, which purported to be executed in November of 2018 and backdated to April 2, 2017. The lease stated that Afresh payed rent in the amount of eighty percent of the utility charges; however, the City argued that statements attributed to the Afresh pastor in local media indicated that the owner allowed Afresh to use the building free of charge and that Afresh had not been billed by the owner for a percentage of the utilities as set out in the lease. Despite this, the court denied the motion to dismiss this claim, as it was required to accept the facts in Afresh’s complaint as true, including the allegation that Afresh had a leasehold interest in the building.

The City next claimed that the zoning ordinance was in effect prior to the time the Afresh congregation started meeting in the building, and consequently Afresh never had a reasonable expectation that the building could be used as a church. In response, Afresh asserted that common and well-known uses of the building included regular gatherings of large groups of people, and that it was entitled to rely on its knowledge that secular groups were allowed to gather to infer that a religious group also would be allowed to gather. The court found Afresh stated a claim that it had a reasonable expectation that it would be able to use the Building to host religious services, and thus the City’s motion to dismiss brought under the “substantial burden” clause of RLUIPA was also denied.

As to its Equal Terms Claim, while Afresh acknowledged the City had an interest in controlling the size of a particular gathering for purposes of noise and traffic, the zoning ordinance provided for conditional use permits for entities expected to draw a large crowd, such as gymnastic studios, youth activity centers, and bus terminals, as well as arenas, amphitheaters, and stadiums with some space requirements, but did not allow churches. Afresh further claimed that the City allowed very large groups to assemble in the zone for one-time events such as festivals and fundraisers, but fined the owner for allowing Afresh to use the building for religious purposes. The court held that Afresh alleged a cause of action that the zoning ordinance was not facially neutral and that it discriminated as applied to religious organizations. Accordingly, the City’s motion to dismiss was denied.

Afresh Church v. City of Winchester, 2019 WL 2746757 (WD VA 7/1/2019)