No—not quite yet.
The Planning Commission’s September 8 action is a real denial of this use-permit application, not merely a request for more study. But Amador County provides a short appeal route to the Board of Supervisors. If no timely appeal is filed, the denial becomes the final County administrative decision on this application. Even then, a new application or a court challenge can still be possible.
What the Planning Commission actually did
The County’s September 8 agenda presented two separate decisions: whether the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was adequate and whether to approve or deny Use Permit UP-22;2-3. During deliberations, the Commission handled them separately. It unanimously found the MND inadequate and then unanimously denied the use permit.
Path 1: an appeal to the Board of Supervisors
Amador County Code § 19.56.050 says an interested person who is not satisfied with Planning Commission action may appeal in writing to the Board of Supervisors within ten days. The appeal is filed with the Clerk of the Board and requires the applicable fee. The same section says the Board hearing is de novo—in plain English, the Board is not limited to asking whether the Planning Commission made a technical mistake. It can hear the matter anew and may grant, deny, or grant the use permit with conditions.
Counting ten days from September 8 produces a calculated deadline of September 18, 2026. The machine-generated caption at the end of the hearing says “September 13th,” but that date is inconsistent with the ten-day rule and falls on a Sunday. Until the County posts final minutes or an appeal notice, September 18 should be treated as the calculated deadline rather than as a substitute for official confirmation.
County codeUse-permit appeals — § 19.56.050
The section provides the ten-day filing period, filing with the Clerk of the Board, a public hearing, de novo review, and the Board’s authority to grant, deny, or grant with conditions.
Open Amador County Code Chapter 19.56County procedureClerk of the Board
The Clerk maintains the Board’s official legislative record. The County lists the office at 810 Court Street, Jackson, with business hours Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Open Clerk of the Board pageCurrent fee pageAppeals reviewed by Planning Commission / Board
The County maintains a current Planning fee schedule, but the exact fee classification for an appeal from this Planning Commission denial should be confirmed with the filing office before submission.
Open current Planning feesIf an appeal is filed, what can the Board do?
The Board could uphold the denial, reverse it and approve the use permit, or approve it with conditions. Because the Planning Commission also rejected the environmental document, an approval would still have to satisfy CEQA. A de novo Board does not have to adopt the Planning Commission’s CEQA conclusion, but it would need a legally supportable environmental determination of its own. Depending on the record and any additional analysis, that could mean defending a revised or existing negative declaration, requiring additional study, or moving to an EIR.
The use-permit-specific appeal section says the Board is to decide within 45 days after filing; a separate general appeals section, § 19.64.040, says 60 days for an applicant appeal. Because those provisions use different timelines, this report does not predict the exact hearing deadline. The County’s posted hearing notice will be the practical date to follow.
County codeGeneral Planning Commission appeal — § 19.64.040
The general appeals chapter separately gives an applicant ten days to appeal a Planning Commission decision to the Board and states a 60-day decision period.
Open Amador County Code Chapter 19.64An appeal is a realistic possibility
During the September 8 deliberations, the transcript captures the applicant saying that if the matter went to an EIR, he would appeal to the Board of Supervisors. That statement was made before the final denial vote, so it is not proof that an appeal has been filed. It does make the appeal window worth watching closely.
What to watch next
The clearest signals will be an appeal filing with the Clerk of the Board, a new Board agenda item naming UP-22;2-3, or a County notice setting a de novo public hearing. The County currently lists regular Board meetings on September 22, October 6, and October 20, but an appeal is not guaranteed to appear on the earliest meeting.
Path 2: no appeal is filed
If the appeal period expires without a timely appeal, the Planning Commission denial becomes the County’s final administrative action on this application. At that point, UP-22;2-3 as decided on September 8 is denied. There is no approved cemetery use permit to implement.
That still does not mean the property can never be the subject of another cemetery proposal. In a February 2025 Amador County Planning Commission matter involving a different use permit, County Counsel explained that if the proposal came back to the Commission after denial, “the process needs to start over again.” We did not locate a general Title 19 rule permanently barring a new or materially revised use-permit application after denial.
Recent Amador exampleJackson Gate Hotel denial and appeal
February 11, 2025 Planning Commission minutes state that a denied project returning to the Commission would have to start the process over; the applicant then appealed that denial to the Board.
Open County recordPath 3: a court challenge after the County process
After the County reaches a final administrative decision, litigation is another possible route. California land-use challenges to permit decisions are often subject to the short limitations period in Government Code § 65009, and CEQA claims can have even shorter deadlines depending on the notice the County files. Anyone evaluating actual litigation deadlines would need to use the final County action and filing notices, not this summary.
Because this proposal is a religious cemetery, a federal religious-land-use claim is also a conceivable litigation theory. RLUIPA protects religious assemblies and institutions from certain substantial burdens, unequal treatment, and religious discrimination in land-use regulation. The U.S. Department of Justice has previously brought RLUIPA litigation involving denials of Muslim cemetery proposals. That does not mean Gardens of Noor would prevail on such a claim; it means the religious-land-use issue is legally real and the County’s stated reasons, consistency, record, and decision-maker comments could matter.
One hearing issue that could matter later
After the public hearing was closed, one commissioner made comments about Islam and alleged religiously sanctioned deception while explaining his views of the project. Those remarks were not the only reasons given for the denial, and the Commission also discussed traffic, groundwater, fire, environmental review, road conditions, biology, and site suitability. Still, if a later appeal or lawsuit alleges religious discrimination, comments about the applicant’s religion could become part of that argument and should not be ignored in evaluating litigation risk.
Federal law contextDOJ RLUIPA guidance
The Justice Department explains that RLUIPA addresses unjustifiable burdens, unequal treatment, discrimination, and unreasonable exclusion of religious land uses.
Open DOJ Place to Worship InitiativeFederal enforcement exampleMuslim cemetery cases
DOJ’s 20-year RLUIPA report describes a Farmersville, Texas case in which the Department alleged RLUIPA violations after a city denied zoning approval for a Muslim religious cemetery, as well as other religious-cemetery disputes.
Open DOJ reportSo how “final” is the September 8 vote?
Denied, but appealable
The Planning Commission has denied the permit. The short Board appeal window is the immediate next question.
Final at the County administrative level
This application ends in denial, though a new application or court action could still be attempted.
Board hears it anew
The Board can uphold the denial, reverse it, or impose conditions, subject to CEQA and other applicable law.
Bottom line
The September 8 vote was a major turning point: the project did not merely get delayed for an EIR; the use permit itself was denied. But the most accurate status today is “Planning Commission denied — appeal period open.” The next decisive event is whether an appeal is actually filed.
This report is informational and procedural analysis, not legal advice. It will be updated when the County posts final minutes, an appeal filing, or a Board hearing notice.