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

Heading: Substantial Burden and Free Exercise Claims

Text: Eagle Cove also seeks relief under the substantial burden provision of RLUIPA, which requires land use restrictions on religious assemblies be in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and use the least restrictive means possible to achieve that interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a). Eagle Cove must demonstrate that the zoning in Oneida County imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religious rights and that the County did not have a compelling reason in creating the burden. A substantial burden under RLUIPA “is one that necessarily bears direct, primary, and fundamental responsibility for rendering religious exercise … effectively impracticable.” CLUB, 342 F.3d at 761. The burden must be truly substantial, to hold otherwise would permit religious organizations to supplant even facially-neutral zoning restrictions under the auspices of religious freedom. See Petra Presbyterian Church v. Village of Northbrook, 489 F.3d 846, 851 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unless the requirement of substantial burden is taken seriously, the difficulty of proving a compelling governmental interest will free religious organizations from zoning restrictions of any kind.”) 12 No. 13-1274 There are numerous locations within Oneida County for Eagle Cove to place its Bible camp. See supra Part I.A. Eagle Cove concedes that there are four tracts of land, out of the ten put forth by the County, which would be suitable for their proposed camp. (Appellant’s Br. at 33.) Despite this admission, Eagle Cove has insisted from the onset of this litigation that the camp must be built on the subject property. In fact, they have never even looked into operating the Bible camp on any other land in Oneida County, though several properties in the County that could have supported a year-round camp have been sold since 2006. It is not the land use regulations that create a substantial burden, but rather Eagle Cove’s insistence that the expansive, year-round Bible camp be placed on the subject property. See Petra, 489 F.3d at 851 (“When there is plenty of land on which religious organizations can build churches … in a community, the fact that they are not permitted to build everywhere does not create a substantial burden.”). The OCZSPO itself applies a neutral land use regulation by zoning the area around Squash Lake, including the subject property, as a Single Family Residential district. The zoning occurred before Eagle Cove expressed any interest in constructing a Bible camp. Eagle Cove was given the opportunity to seek rezoning and a CUP application, both of which were denied. They also had the opportunity to seek out other properties on which to build their camp, but chose not to do so. Rather, Eagle Cove brought this suit. Though they claim to seek the protections of RLUIPA, in reality Eagle Cove seeks nothing more than an exception from the OCZSPO on the basis of their religious beliefs. RLUIPA is meant to protect religious No. 13-1274 13 freedoms from impermissible land use regulations, it is not meant to allow religious exercise to circumvent facially-neutral zoning regulations. Eagle Cove is not requesting relief from an unjust law or ordinance implemented by the County that inhibits their religious activity; rather, they seek special treatment on the basis of their religious purpose. See CLUB, 342 F. 3d at 762 (“[N]o such free pass for religious land uses masquerades among the legitimate protections RLUIPA affords to religious exercise”). Eagle Cove also maintains that Oneida County and the Town of Woodboro caused considerable delay, uncertainty, and expense in the execution of the rezoning application they submitted by leading them to believe that their permits would be granted. They rely on our holding in Sts. Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. v. City of New Berlin, 396 F.3d 895, 901 (7th Cir. 2005), which found a substantial burden under RLUIPA where there was considerable “delay, uncertainty and expense.” We held that “[i]f a land-use decision … imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise … and the decision maker cannot justify it, the inference arises that hostility to religion, or more likely to a particular sect, influenced the decision.” Id. at 900. In New Berlin, however, there were indicia of bad faith by the City that led the Court to find no compelling governmental interest that the City could put forth to justify its substantial burden on the Church. Id. at 899 (“The repeated legal errors by the City’s officials casts doubt on their good faith”). That is not the case here. First, the fact that Eagle Cove has spent considerable time and money on various applications for rezoning does not constitute, prima facie, a substantial burden. See, e.g., CLUB, 342 14 No. 13-1274 F.3d at 761 (“That [Appellants] expended considerable time and money … does not entitle them to relief under RLUIPA’s substantial burden provision”). Further, it is clear from the record that the Town and County maintained their position throughout the rezoning application process that, while religious exercise would be allowed in the form of a church or school on the subject property, they would not permit the construction of a year-round recreational camp. The County had a compelling interest in preserving the rural and rustic character of the Town as well as the single-family development around Squash Lake. To do this, it zoned the area around Squash Lake for single family purposes four years before Eagle Cove first sought to build the camp. The zoning regulations do not seek to inhibit Eagle Cove’s religious activity; they merely encourage an area of quiet seclusion for families around Squash Lake. Eagle Cove’s Free Exercise claim must fail for the same reasons. We have previously noted that “both the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA provide that, if a facially-neutral law or land use regulation imposes a substantial burden on religion, it is subject to strict scrutiny.” Vision Church, 468 F.3d at 996. As in Vision Church, we apply our substantial burden analysis to deny Eagle Cove’s Free Exercise claim. Id. (“Given the similarities between RLUIPA § 2(a)(1) and First Amendment jurisprudence, we collapse [appellant’s] claims for the purpose of this analysis; this approach seems most consistent with postRLUIPA case law”). No. 13-1274 15