Opinion ID: 2709216
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Total Exclusion Claim

Text: Eagle Cove argues that Woodboro has violated RLUIPA’s total exclusion provision, which prohibits governmental land use regulations from totally excluding religious assemblies from a jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3)(A). Eagle Cove’s No. 13-1274 9 total exclusion argument is predicated, and in fact depends, on the assumption that Woodboro has jurisdiction to implement land use regulations on the subject property. This stems from the fact that year-round recreational camps are permitted throughout the County (rendering Eagle Cove’s total exclusion claim obsolete), but not allowed within Woodboro’s borders. “Jurisdiction generally describes any authority over a certain area or certain persons … Smaller geographic areas, such as counties or cities, are separate jurisdictions to the extent that they have powers independent of the federal and state governments.”(Appellant’s Br. at 22–23), citing West’s Encyclopedia of American Law (2011). Black’s Law Dictionary defines jurisdiction as: “A geographic area within which political or judicial authority may be exercised.” 867 (9th ed. 2009). Neither of these definitions yields any support for Eagle Cove’s contention that Woodboro retains jurisdiction over land use regulations within the town. Jurisdiction requires that a municipality is able to exercise control or authority over a designated area. Indeed, Woodboro does retain jurisdiction on numerous matters of local governance that are within its control. The town board can, for example, regulate bowling centers, dance halls, and roadhouses maintained in commercial facilities. Wisconsin Statute § 60.23(10). It can dispose of dead animals or contract with a private disposal facility to do the same. Wisconsin Statute § 60.23(20). Town meetings may be called to regulate the appropriation of money. Wisconsin Statute § 60.10(1)(3). In this case, Woodboro was able to exercise its jurisdiction in approving the OCZSPO. “A county ordinance enacted 10 No. 13-1274 under this section shall not be effective in any town until it has been approved by the town board … The ordinance shall supersede any prior town ordinance in conflict therewith or which is concerned with zoning[.]” Wisconsin Statute § 56.69(5)(c). Woodboro chose to be subordinate to Oneida’s zoning ordinance, and thereby relinquished its jurisdiction over land use regulations to the County. Eagle Cove argues that Woodboro’s implementation of its Land Use and Comprehensive Plans is proof that the town maintains sufficient control over the zoning regulations. The record suggests otherwise. Though Woodboro created the aforementioned plans, these were not binding on the County’s ultimate zoning decisions. Whether or not the town approves of a change in zoning is merely one of the factors considered by the County in making its determination. Woodboro serves a limited, consultative role in determining the town’s zoning regulations. The weight given to Woodboro’s recommendation is at the discretion of the County. The town board itself acknowledged its advisory role in reviewing Eagle Cove’s CUP application: “[T]he Town of Woodboro … hereby provides an advisory recommendation to the Oneida County Planning and Zoning Department that the [CUP] Application for Eagle Cove … be denied.” (R. 62–48 at 2.) (emphasis added). Thus, it is clear that the County, not Woodboro, exercises jurisdiction. For this reason, Eagle Cove’s total exclusion claim must fail. There is ample evidence in the record to suggest that operating a year-round Bible camp would be possible in many parts of Oneida County. See supra Part I.A. In Vision Church, we held that the total exclusion provision of RLUIPA prohibits only “the complete and total exclusion of activity or expression No. 13-1274 11 protected by the First Amendment.” 468 F.3d at 989. It is undisputed that Eagle Cove could construct a year-round Bible camp on thirty-six percent of the land in Oneida County. It is further undisputed that Eagle Cove could construct a religious church or school on the subject property. This is hardly a complete and total exclusion.