District Court Rules on Ripeness of Claim Under RLUIPA

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) protects religious users against abusive municipal land use practices. But when does a RLUIPA claim become ripe? In Rabbi Israel Meyer Hacochen Rabbinical Seminary of America v. Town of Putnam Valley (2022 WL 4357933), a federal district court in the Southern District of New York dismissed a RLUIPA claim as unripe, borrowing ripeness doctrine from the takings context and declining to apply a "futility exception" to the requirement that a landowner obtain a final decision before proceeding to federal court. The seminary has appealed, so the Second Circuit will soon have the opportunity to address the ripeness issue.

The Facts

In 2013, the seminary received deeds to two lots in the town. The seminary sought to develop the parcels as a centralized Jewish cemetery operating in conformity with Orthodox Jewish principles. Cemeteries are not a permitted use anywhere in the town. In January 2014, however, the seminary applied to the town planning board for sketch plan approval of the cemetery because part of the property had been used as a burial ground in the past and the planning board had authority to approve enlargement of nonconforming uses. In March 2014, the planning board denied sketch plan approval and referred the application to the zoning board of appeals (ZBA) for an interpretation of the zoning code. In April 2014, the seminary made its first submission to the ZBA, seeking an interpretation that the Planning Board had authority to grant a special use permit or authority to grant an expansion of an existing use. The ZBA raised questions and the seminary responded in writing before the ZBA's May 29 meeting. At that meeting, the seminary learned that the town would not process its application unless the seminary first applied to the county legislature for authorization to use the land as a cemetery In August, the county legislature discussed the issue, and in September, informed the town that the town should first make its land use decision. The town asked the county legislature to re-examine its position, but on Dec. 12, 2014, the county legislature declined to reconsider.