Redeemed Christian Church of God (Victory Temple) Bowie v. Prince George's Cnty., 20-2125

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: KING, Circuit Judge
• Citation: 17 F.4th 497
• Parties: The REDEEMED CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GOD (VICTORY TEMPLE) BOWIE, MARYLAND, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND. Defendant – Appellant. Sikh Coalition; General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Amici Supporting Appellee.
• Docket Number: No. 20-2125,20-2125
• Decision Date: 03 November 2021

17 F.4th 497

The REDEEMED CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GOD (VICTORY TEMPLE) BOWIE, MARYLAND, Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND. Defendant – Appellant.

Sikh Coalition; General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Amici Supporting Appellee.

No. 20-2125

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: September 22, 2021
Decided: November 3, 2021

ARGUED: Donald A. Rea, SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Meghan K. Casey, GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Ashley N. Fellona, SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Ward B. Coe III, Joseph C. Dugan, GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Christopher Pagliarella, YALE LAW SCHOOL FREE EXERCISE CLINIC, Washington, D.C.; Amrith Kaur Aakre, Cindy Nesbit, THE SIKH COALITION, New York, New York; Erika A. Maley, Christopher S. Ross, Alaric R. Smith, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.

Before KING, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge King wrote the opinion, in which Judge Thacker and Judge Richardson joined.

KING, Circuit Judge

17 F.4th 500

In this RLUIPA civil action that was initiated in the District of Maryland in November 2019, the district court ruled against defendant Prince George's County, Maryland (the "County"), and in favor of plaintiff The Redeemed Christian Church of God (Victory Temple) Bowie, Maryland ("Victory Temple").¹ The court's award of declaratory and injunctive relief to Victory Temple, after a bench trial conducted in June 2020, was predicated on the court's ruling that the County's denial of Victory Temple's application for a legislative amendment to the County's Water and Sewer Plan contravened RLUIPA. See Redeemed Christian Church of God (Victory Temple) Bowie, Md. v. Prince George's Cnty. , 485 F.Supp.3d 594 (D. Md. 2020), ECF No. 58 (the "Verdict").² The County has appealed, raising two primary issues that need to be resolved. First, we must decide whether the legislative amendment to the County's Water and Sewer Plan sought by Victory Temple constitutes a land use regulation subject to RLUIPA. Because we conclude that it does, we next assess whether the County's denial of Victory Temple's application for the legislative amendment violated RLUIPA's substantial burden provision. We also answer that question in favor of Victory Temple and therefore sustain the judgment.

I.

In reciting the facts pertinent here, we draw heavily on the uncontested findings of fact rendered by the district court in its Verdict. We supplement those findings as appropriate with facts drawn from the record.

A.

Victory Temple is a religious congregation affiliated with the Redeemed Christian Church of God, an evangelical church founded in Nigeria in 1952. Pastor Adebayo Adeyokunnu founded Victory Temple in 1996 in Laurel, Maryland. In 2000, Victory Temple purchased its first property in Bowie, just a few miles from Laurel. Two years later, Victory Temple began using the Bowie property as a church.

17 F.4th 501

Since opening its Bowie church in 2002, Victory Temple's membership has grown rapidly, from about 500 to more than 2,000 members. Because the Bowie facility had an occupancy limit of only about 500, Victory Temple soon began searching for a larger property on which to locate and build a new church home for its expanding congregation. In February 2018, Victory Temple purchased a second Bowie property at 14403 Mount Oak Road (the "Property"). Victory Temple intended to build thereon a church facility with a seating capacity of up to 2,000 and a parking lot with about 750 spaces. The Property is located near the intersection of Church Road and Mount Oak Road in Bowie. It is zoned "R-E" by the County, a zoning classification within which a church facility is a by-right use.

Prior to purchasing the Property, Victory Temple hired an engineering firm to conduct a feasibility study that analyzed Victory Temple's ability to build a church on the Property. In August 2017, the firm concluded that building a church on the Property was entirely feasible. The feasibility study revealed that the Property was in the County's water and sewer Category 5, an area planned for a future community water and sewer system. The feasibility study also informed Victory Temple that a traffic study would be required, but the engineering firm did not anticipate any issues related to traffic. With the benefit of the feasibility study, Victory Temple knew that the Property would require an upgrade from water and sewer Category 5 to Category 4 in order to be developed. Victory Temple purchased the Property reasonably expecting that it would be able to build its new church there.

B.

Two land use plans adopted by the County are pertinent to this appeal in that they each impact the availability of water and sewer service on the Property. Those plans are the 2035 Approved General Plan (the "General Plan") and the Water and Sewer Plan.

1.

The General Plan is a 20-year "blueprint for long-term growth and development" in the County. See Verdict 6. The General Plan "does not take a property-level view of the County or change land use designations or zoning on individual properties." Id. Instead, it offers comprehensive recommendations that are to guide development in the County. A Growth Policy Map in the General Plan establishes the framework for attaining the General Plan's vision. For example, the Map shows where and how the County should grow over the next 20 years and specifies six area classifications. Additionally, the Map defines the growth boundary, which "designates the areas that are eligible to receive public water" and sewer service and influences where the County develops. Id. at 7. The General Plan also classifies properties located within the growth boundary — but which have not been approved for a water and sewer category change — as future water and sewer service areas. The future water and sewer service areas serve as holding zones "in which near-term development is deferred until additional residential capacity is required." Id. The Property that Victory Temple seeks to develop is located within the growth boundary and classified as a future water and sewer service area.

2.

The Water and Sewer Plan implements the General Plan and "guides the County planning and development processes by setting out the criteria under which both public and private water and sewer services can be provided." See Verdict 8.

17 F.4th 502

Chapter 2 of the Water and Sewer Plan spells out the water and sewer planning policies and procedures, including the water and sewer category change policies.

The Water and Sewer Plan designates four water and sewer categories which reflect "different planning levels for the provision of public water and sewer service." See J.A. 1111.³ The two categories at issue here are Category 4, Community System Adequate for Development Planning, and Category 5, Future Community Service.

The Water and Sewer Plan describes Category 5 as "land inside the Sewer Envelope that should not be developed until water and sewer lines are available to serve the proposed development." See Verdict 9. Further, Category 5 properties "require a redesignation to Category 4 prior to the development review process," by way of a legislative amendment to the Water and Sewer Plan. Id. The Water and Sewer Plan describes Category 4 as "all properties inside the Sewer Envelope for which the subdivision process is required." Id.

The Water and Sewer Plan — in its Chapter 6 — spells out the water and sewer category change requirements and procedures. The amendment process pertinent here is the legislative amendment process, which applies to changes from Category 5 to Category 4. In order for a category change to be approved through the legislative amendment process, the project must meet the policies and criteria listed in Section 2.1.4 of the Water and Sewer Plan. See Verdict 9. Those criteria include environmental factors, economics and general fiscal concerns, conformity with zoning, and impacts on traffic. See J.A. 1115-18.

In order to begin the legislative amendment process, an application for a water and sewer category change must be submitted to the County's Department of Permitting, Inspections and Enforcement (the "County DPIE"). The County DPIE then "evaluates, prepares and submits proposed Legislative Amendments" to the County Executive — who governs the County's executive branch — for review and recommendations. See Verdict 10. The County DPIE sends those recommendations, along with a proposed Council Resolution, to the County Council — which governs the County's legislative branch — for consideration. Although several entities — including the County DPIE, the County Executive, the Bowie City Council, and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission ("M-NCPPC") — offer input to the County Council, the authority and responsibility to legislatively amend the Water and Sewer Plan rests solely with the County Council, which acts on behalf of the County itself. A category change application that is approved by the County Council constitutes a legislative amendment by the...