Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-City’s and County’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendants’ land use regulations that prohibited plaintiff from running year-round Bible camp on residentially zoned property violated RLUIPA. Plaintiff could not show that defendant-City’s total ban on year-round Bible camp violated RLUIPA’s total exclusion provision, since operative decision-maker was defendant-County that had other properties where Bible camp could be located. Moreover, instant land use regulations did not create substantial burden on plaintiff where: (1) 40% of County’s land parcels could be used for Bible camp; and (2) plaintiff had opportunity to build Bible camp on other properties, but chose not to do so. Fact that plaintiff spent considerable time and money on various applications for rezoning did not constitute substantial burden under RLUIPA.