Development

U.S. Dist. Ct., WDNY

(Siragusa, J.)

In a church's action contending that the village's denial of its request to build a church in a light industrial area violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persona Act (RLUIPA), the village moved to dismiss. The court granted the village's motion, holding that a generally applicable burden neutrally imposed does not violate RLUIPA.

To remedy the inadequacy of its current facilities, the church considered erecting new buildings at its current location, purchasing and demolishing buildings on adjacent properties, or purchasing vacant land to build new facilities. The church settled on purchasing new land, and identified a parcel zoned “light industrial.” The church first sought to rezone the parcel but, on recommendation of the planning board, the village board declined to rezone the property. The church then sought a variance, but the zoning board of appeals denied the variance for failure to meet the requirements for a variance, including hardship.

When the church then sought a special use permit, and the code enforcement officer denied the permit, the ZBA affirmed that determination, rejecting the church's claim that RLUIPA required grant of the permit. The church then brought this action in federal court.

In dismissing, the court relied on language in the Second Circuit's opinion in Village of Mamaroneck v. Westchester Day School, 504 F.3d 338, 350 to the effect that “generally applicable burdens, neutrally imposed, are not “substantial.” The court rejected the argument that expenditure of funds pursuing zoning approvals itself constituted a substantial burden, and noted that the church has known all along that the zoning code does not permit churches in the industrial area. Finally, the court concluded that the complaint did not plead that the subject parcel was the only suitable site in the village for a new church building, so that the church could not rely on that contention to defeat the village's motion to dismiss.

Variance Grant Upheld for Synagogue Expansion

Kettaneh v. Board of Standards and Appeals

NYLJ 6/27/11, p. 21, col. 2

AppDiv, First Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In an article 78 proceeding challenging grant of variances for a synagogue expansion, neighbors appealed from Supreme Court's denial of the petition and dismissal of the proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) had a rational basis for its determination that the proposed building satisfied the criteria set forth in the zoning ordinance.

The subject parcel currently houses a landmarked synagogue, a parsonage house, and a community house. The synagogue sought to demolish the community house and replace it with a nine-story building. The bottom four stories were to be used for community purposes, and the top five stories were to be used for residential condominiums. The BSA granted the synagogue a variance permitting construction, and neighbors brought this article 78 proceeding, which Supreme Court dismissed.

In affirming, the Appellate Division started by concluding that BSA had rationally found unique conditions inherent to the zoning lot that would create practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship, in particular the fact that the lot straddles two zoning districts with different height and setback restrictions. The court then held that this hardship was “unique” within the meaning of the zoning resolution even though there are other lots that straddle two districts. The court then determined that the BSA had rationally found that the synagogue had established that it could not realize a reasonable return on the lot as zoned. For that reason, the court did not reach the synagogue's argument that, as a non-profit entity, it was exempt from any need to show the inability to obtain a reasonable return.

Prohibition of Church in Industrial Zone Does Not Violate RLUIPA

Wesleyan Methodist Church of Canisteo v. Village of
Canisteo

NYLJ 6/10/11

U.S. Dist. Ct., WDNY

(Siragusa, J.)

In a church's action contending that the village's denial of its request to build a church in a light industrial area violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persona Act (RLUIPA), the village moved to dismiss. The court granted the village's motion, holding that a generally applicable burden neutrally imposed does not violate RLUIPA.

To remedy the inadequacy of its current facilities, the church considered erecting new buildings at its current location, purchasing and demolishing buildings on adjacent properties, or purchasing vacant land to build new facilities. The church settled on purchasing new land, and identified a parcel zoned “light industrial.” The church first sought to rezone the parcel but, on recommendation of the planning board, the village board declined to rezone the property. The church then sought a variance, but the zoning board of appeals denied the variance for failure to meet the requirements for a variance, including hardship.

When the church then sought a special use permit, and the code enforcement officer denied the permit, the ZBA affirmed that determination, rejecting the church's claim that RLUIPA required grant of the permit. The church then brought this action in federal court.

In dismissing, the court relied on language in the Second Circuit's opinion in Village of Mamaroneck v. Westchester Day School , 504 F.3d 338, 350 to the effect that “generally applicable burdens, neutrally imposed, are not “substantial.” The court rejected the argument that expenditure of funds pursuing zoning approvals itself constituted a substantial burden, and noted that the church has known all along that the zoning code does not permit churches in the industrial area. Finally, the court concluded that the complaint did not plead that the subject parcel was the only suitable site in the village for a new church building, so that the church could not rely on that contention to defeat the village's motion to dismiss.

Variance Grant Upheld for Synagogue Expansion

Kettaneh v. Board of Standards and Appeals

NYLJ 6/27/11, p. 21, col. 2

AppDiv, First Dept.

(memorandum opinion)

In an article 78 proceeding challenging grant of variances for a synagogue expansion, neighbors appealed from Supreme Court's denial of the petition and dismissal of the proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) had a rational basis for its determination that the proposed building satisfied the criteria set forth in the zoning ordinance.

The subject parcel currently houses a landmarked synagogue, a parsonage house, and a community house. The synagogue sought to demolish the community house and replace it with a nine-story building. The bottom four stories were to be used for community purposes, and the top five stories were to be used for residential condominiums. The BSA granted the synagogue a variance permitting construction, and neighbors brought this article 78 proceeding, which Supreme Court dismissed.

In affirming, the Appellate Division started by concluding that BSA had rationally found unique conditions inherent to the zoning lot that would create practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship, in particular the fact that the lot straddles two zoning districts with different height and setback restrictions. The court then held that this hardship was “unique” within the meaning of the zoning resolution even though there are other lots that straddle two districts. The court then determined that the BSA had rationally found that the synagogue had established that it could not realize a reasonable return on the lot as zoned. For that reason, the court did not reach the synagogue's argument that, as a non-profit entity, it was exempt from any need to show the inability to obtain a reasonable return.