A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. against the City of St. Louis because New Life’s claims are not yet “ripe” for review.  In order for a court to have jurisdiction to hear the merits of a case, the case must be ripe.  The ripeness doctrine is meant to prevent courts from deciding claims that have been prematurely brought.  Generally, constitutional and other federal claims involving land use regulation will not be deemed ripe “until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue.”  Williamson Cnty. Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 186 (1985).  A variance may also be required to satisfy the ripeness requirement.

Because New Life had applied for a zoning permit that had not yet been decided by the City’s land use agency, the Court concluded that New Life’s claims were not ripe for review.

New Life is an interdenominational Christian church that operates a homeless shelter serving approximately 225 people on average (and 300 people on a cold night).  It has been operating since 1976 under a hotel permit allowing it to have 32 beds.  After receiving a citizens’ petition, the City declared the shelter a detriment to the neighborhood and said it would revoke the hotel permit unless New Life either proved that it complied with the 32-bed requirement for at least 30 days or that it obtained the necessary permit to continue to operate.

New Life sued the City in March 2015 alleging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the U.S. Constitution and state law.  In July 2015, New Life applied for a new permit and reported to the Court that its communications with the City had been productive.  New Life even stated at a September hearing that it would stay its lawsuit pending resolution of its application.  The City moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that New Life’s claims were not ripe for review until a final decision had been made with respect to the zoning permit application.

For additional information on New Life’s petition, see our prior post here.

New Life argued that its case should not be dismissed because applying for the zoning permit was futile.  According to New Life, the application was futile because it would be unable to meet certain requirements necessary for approval.  For example, it claimed that it could not obtain a permit because the ordinance prohibits a homeless shelter from being located next to a school or a church, and New Life is a church and the shelter is next to a school.  The futility exception allows a court to consider the merits of an otherwise unripe claim if seeking zoning relief would be a futile effort.  The Court rejected this argument, finding that “the City has the authority to issue variances and has repeatedly indicated a willingness to work with New Life to promptly address its application including any requests for variances.”

The Court also considered whether New Life had suffered a sufficiently defined immediate injury that required judicial intervention before a final decision on the zoning permit application had been rendered, and determined that it had not: “any claim of immediate injury is suspect given the numerous options afforded New Life upon issuance of the Board Order and Plaintiff’s current willingness to stay the action in order to proceed with the new application.”

The court also suggests that even if the zoning permit itself has not been decided, and even if the application for the zoning permit is futile and therefore the action would be ripe, the very fact that New Life could still apply for and be granted a variance from the zoning requirements of the zoning permit may be sufficient in and of itself to sustain the ripeness defense.

This case may serve as an important reminder for local governments facing the threat of RLUIPA and other federal suits.  When a lawsuit is brought, it may be a worthwhile exercise to examine the local zoning code to determine whether the plaintiff has sought a variance or has otherwise obtained a final decision.  In the case of New Life, the Court stated that it “cannot determine that the City has definitively barred New Life from using the building as it wishes until the City has evaluated a complete application and determined how it will apply its land use regulations to the [building].”

The Court’s decision in New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, Missouri (E.D. Missouri 2015) is available here.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Evan Seeman Evan Seeman

Evan J. Seeman is a lawyer in Robinson+Cole’s Hartford office and focuses his practice on land use, real estate, environmental, and regulatory matters, representing local governments, developers and advocacy groups. He has spoken and written about RLUIPA, and was a lead author of…

Evan J. Seeman is a lawyer in Robinson+Cole’s Hartford office and focuses his practice on land use, real estate, environmental, and regulatory matters, representing local governments, developers and advocacy groups. He has spoken and written about RLUIPA, and was a lead author of an amicus curiae brief at the petition stage before the United States Supreme Court in a RLUIPA case entitled City of San Leandro v. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.

Evan serves as the Secretary/Treasurer of the APA’s Planning & Law Division. He also serves as the Chair of the Planning & Zoning Section of the Connecticut Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Section, and is the former Co-Chair of its Municipal Law Section. He has been named to the Connecticut Super Lawyers® list as a Rising Star in the area of Land Use Law for 2013 and 2014. He received his B.A. in political science and Russian studies (with honors) from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, where he was selected as the President’s Fellow in the Department of Modern Languages and Literature. Evan received his Juris Doctor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, where he served on the Connecticut Law Review. While in law school, he interned with the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General in the environmental department, and served as a judicial intern for the judges of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court. Following law school, Evan clerked for the Honorable F. Herbert Gruendel of the Connecticut Appellate Court.

Photo of Dwight Merriam Dwight Merriam

Dwight H. Merriam founded Robinson+Cole’s Land Use Group in 1978. He represents land owners, developers, governments and individuals in land use matters, with a focus on defending governments in RLUIPA cases. Dwight is a Fellow and Past President of the American Institute of…

Dwight H. Merriam founded Robinson+Cole’s Land Use Group in 1978. He represents land owners, developers, governments and individuals in land use matters, with a focus on defending governments in RLUIPA cases. Dwight is a Fellow and Past President of the American Institute of Certified Planners, a former Director of the American Planning Association (APA), a former chair of APA’s Planning and Law Division, Immediate Past Chair of the American Bar Association’s Section of State and Local Government Law, Chair of the Institute of Local Government Studies at the Center for American and International Law, a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, a member of the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute National Advisory Board, a Fellow of the Connecticut Bar Foundation, a Counselor of Real Estate, a member of the Anglo-American Real Property Institute, and a Fellow of the American College of Real Estate Lawyers.

He teaches land use law at the University of Connecticut School of Law and at Vermont Law School and has published over 200 articles and eight books, including Inclusionary Zoning Moves Downtown, The Takings Issue, The Complete Guide to Zoning, and Eminent Domain Use and Abuse: Kelo in Context. He is the senior co-author of the leading casebook on land use law, Planning and Control of Land Development (Eighth Edition). Dwight has written and spoken widely on how to avoid RLUIPA claims and how to successfully defend against them in court. He is currently writing a book on the subject, RLUIPA DEFENSE, for the American Bar Association.

Dwight has been named to the Connecticut Super Lawyers® list in the area of Land Use Law since 2006, is one of the Top 50 Connecticut Super Lawyers in Connecticut, and is one of the Top 100 New England Super Lawyers (Super Lawyers is a registered trademark of Key Professional Media, Inc.). He received his B.A. (cum laude) from the University of Massachusetts, his Masters of Regional Planning from the University of North Carolina, where he was the graduation speaker in 2011, and his J.D. from Yale. He is a featured speaker at many land use seminars, and presents monthly audio land use seminars for the International Municipal Lawyers Association. Dwight has been cited in the national press from The New York Times to People magazine and has appeared on NBC’s The Today Show, MSNBC and public television.

Dwight also had a career in the Navy, serving for three tours in Vietnam aboard ship, then returning to be the Senior Advisor of the Naval ROTC Unit at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill where he taught Defense Administration and Military Management as an Assistant Professor in the undergraduate and graduate curriculum in Defense Administration and Military Management. He left active duty after seven years to attend law school, but continued on for 24 more years as a reserve Surface Warfare Officer with two major commands, including that of the reserve commanding officer of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center. He retired as a Captain in 2009 after 31 years of service.