A seemingly unassuming piece of legislation passed in Congress in 2000 has led to several disputes between Westchester and Rockland County municipalities and religious organizations.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) passed by Congress in 2000, was intended to protect religious organizations from discriminatory land use and zoning practices. It was also designed to protect the religious rights of inmates.
But some area towns are claiming religious organizations are abusing the law to build projects that would normally not be allowed by local zoning laws.
Religious groups, meanwhile, say they would be unfairly discriminated against without the law.
In Mamaroneck, the town has been in a long legal fight with Westchester Day School, an Orthodox Jewish school, that wants to build new $12 million classroom building.
The Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals cited neighborhood concerns about traffic and the impact on a quiet neighborhood. But the school was consistently upheld in various courts, which argued the town did not demonstrate a “compelling interest” as to why the school addition should not be built.
In October, the Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeal again ruled in favor of the school.
Attorney Steven Silverberg of Silverberg Zalantis in White Plains was retained by Mamaroneck after the appeals court decision. He said the school is considering its options from here, including bringing the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
While not commenting specifically on the Mamaroneck case, Silverberg said often religious institutions use the law as a sword to force municipalities to pass building projects, rather than as the anti-discriminatory shield the law was intended to be.
“I think the law is overbroad; it allows religious organizations to do things that no others can do,” he said. “(The law) is well-intentioned, and there is a need for a similar law, but certainly (the current law) is overbroad in its application.”
One case where he believes this might be the situation is in the tiny Rockland County village of Pomona.
In that case, the Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov is seeking to build housing for 250 students and their families on 30 acres on the congregation”™s 100 acre property in the village.
The college has filed a complaint against the village, claiming it passed discriminatory zoning and environmental laws intended to stop the project before it even listened to the college”™s proposal.
But Silverberg believes the college may be using the RLUIPA to skirt local zoning laws that anyone else would have to follow.
Â
“They haven”™t submitted an application; they started seeking (legal) action to have village grant them approval, claiming they don”™t have to make an application because it would be a futile exercise,” he said.
He said to fight a case like this in court may take years, such as the Westchester Day School case, costing the municipality untold amounts of money in legal fees. This could deter some towns and villages from even trying to dispute a case for fear of facing years of legal battles and fees, he said.
“I think it”™s gotten out of balance at this point,” Silverberg said. “There should be a way to provide balance, to protect religious groups but not give them a bludgeon to beat municipalities into submission.”
But Paul Savad, an attorney for the Rabbinical College, said the project will not have the negative impact the village claims it will, and without RLUIPA it would have no legal recourse to fight the village.
“This is not a residential neighborhood, it”™s on a state highway,” said Savad, whose practice is based in Nanuet. “We don”™t feel this is pushing the envelope.”
Savad said Pomona zoning laws allow only for single-family housing, but with an exception for projects for schools and religious groups.
“The village began passing irrelevant environmental laws (to halt the project), and didn”™t allow us to even sit down with them,” he said. “We believe the village has left us with no choice, but pointless and fruitless litigation with enormous legal fees on both sides.”
Whatever happens, RLUIPA cases across the country are becoming more prevalent, Silverberg said, and it will be sooner rather than later that one comes before the Supreme Court.
Â
Â
Â
Â
