Citizens United to Protect Our Neighborhoods v. Vill. of Chestnut Ridge
| Decision Date | 30 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 7:19 CIV 3461 (NSR) |
| Parties | CITIZENS UNITED TO PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS; HILDA KOGUT; ROBERT ASSELBERGS; and CAROLE GOODMAN, Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE OF CHESTNUT RIDGE, NEW YORK, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiffs Citizens United to Protect Our Neighborhoods, Hilda Kogut Robert Asselbergs, and Carole Goodman (collectively “Plaintiffs”) allege Defendant the Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York (“Defendant” or “the Village”) violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in its enactment of a new zoning law relating to houses of worship, Local Law #1 of 2019, by favoring only one religious group, the Orthodox Jewish Coalition. Before the Court are Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) and Proposed Defendants-Intervenors Congregation Birchas Yitzchok Congregation Dexter Park, Congregation Torah U'tfilla the Orthodox Jewish Coalition of Chestnut Ridge, and Agudath Israel of America Inc. (collectively, “Proposed Intervenors”)'s motion to intervene in the action.
For the following reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene is DENIED as moot.
The following facts are derived from the Complaint and the documents referenced therein and are assumed as true for purposes of this motion. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Plaintiff Citizens United to Protect Our Neighborhoods (“CUPON”)-a civic membership organization that advocates for fair land use reform for citizens of the Chestnut Ridge-along with Plaintiffs Hilda Kogut, Robert Asselbergs, and Carole Goodman-residents of the Village of Chestnut Ridge-bring this action against Defendant, the Village of Chestnut Ridge, New York. (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 5-10.) Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendant's alleged unconstitutional actions in enacting zoning laws that favor only the Orthodox Jewish Coalition (“OJC”), a religious organization, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. (Id. ¶ 1.)
The Village of Chestnut Ridge is a municipal corporation located within the Town of Ramapo in Rockland County, New York. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 17.) The Village is “largely a high-quality, low-density, single-family neighborhood of quiet wooded and suburban character.” (Id. ¶ 23.) Since the Village's incorporation in 1986, it has been zoned primarily for single-family residences. (Id.) The Village has a mayor, Rosario Presti, and a Board of Trustees. (Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiffs allege Mayor Presti and the Board of Trustees were responsible for enacting and enforcing local laws, ordinances, and policies, managing the affairs of the village, protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of residents, providing public services, and carrying out duties consistent with the New York and United States Constitutions. (Id. ¶ 19.)
Contrary to the encouragement of New York State Village Law Section 7-722 to adopt a comprehensive plan for the Village, and against a recommendation from CUPON's professional planner to do the same, the Village did not develop a comprehensive plan. (Id. ¶¶ 25-26.)
Accordingly, the Village did not have a comprehensive plan in place to follow or consider in enacting the new zoning law at issue. (See id. ¶¶ 24-27.)
Plaintiffs challenge Defendant's adoption of Local Law #1 of 2019 (the “New Zoning Law”). (See id. ¶ 103.) Prior to the new zoning amendments, the Village had laws that treated all places of worship in one category (the “Old Zoning Laws”). Under the old laws, all places of worship must have a special permit for religious use and site planning approval from the Village Planning Board and, absent a variance, houses of worship must be built and maintained on lots that were at least five acres. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29.) Anyone seeking to use a single-family home or other structures for organized religious purposes must apply for and receive permission through a variance process. (Id. ¶ 28.)
Under the Old Zoning Laws, the Village had multiple houses of worships of varying faiths and all formal houses of worships received the necessary permissions and variances. (See id. ¶ 29.) For instance, Plaintiffs allege that at least one congregation had received permission to establish a house of worship without the need to change the laws. In October 2015, the Village approved special permits and variances for the Congregation Ohr Mordechai for it to raze an entire building and build a new neighborhood place of worship “without any overhaul of the Village's then-existing Zoning Laws.” (Id. ¶¶ 31-35.) Plaintiffs also allege that except for one lawsuit-which they claim was collusive-there were no other claims or challenges filed to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding houses of worship. (See id. ¶¶ 36-41.)
Plaintiffs allege starting in 2017, the mayor and village planners exchanged emails, texts, phone calls, and held meetings with the Orthodox Jewish Coalition (“OJC”). (Id. ¶ 43.) In August 2017, OJC allegedly provided a draft of the proposed law to the Village. (Id. ¶ 44.) In August and September 2017, Nelson Pope & Voorhis (“NPV”), a firm hired by the Village for planning purposes, billed the Village for work related to review of the proposed zoning law from OJC. (Id. ¶¶ 44-48.) On March 1, 2018, a Planning Board Workshop Meeting was held among NPV, Assistant Village Attorney Paul Baum, Village Planning Board Member Anthony Luciano, and members of OJC. (Id. ¶ 49.) Plaintiffs allege that the drafting, negotiating, and drafting of sections of the New Zoning Law was “done in secret” between the Village and OJC and with intention to “exclude[] other churches, mosques, patterns, and village residents.” (See id. ¶¶ 52-53.)
On February 22, 2018, the proposed zoning law was first publicly disclosed at a Village Board meeting, after providing less than two days' notice to Village residents. (Id. ¶¶ 54, 58.) The proposed zoning law was referred to as the “House of Worship amendments” which created new categories of religious uses and houses of worship under the definition of permitted uses as then contained in the Village's zoning laws. (Id. ¶ 55.) The proposed zoning law established three categories of Houses of Worship: (1) “residential places of worship,” which was later changed to be called “residential gathering place”; (2) “neighborhood places of worship”; and (3) “community places of worship.” (Id. ¶ 56.)
The “residential gathering place” category permitted the use of a single-family dwelling for religious uses. (Id.) Mayor Presti confirmed that a special permit would automatically be approved for an application that complies with Village law. (Id. ¶ 60.) Plaintiffs allege the proposed law allowed OJC to acquire single-family dwellings and open them to religious activities subject to additional parking requirements, serving as a blanket variance in development coverage and doubling the percentage of the property units that can be developed for religious uses. (See id. at 56.) Plaintiffs allege the initial draft of the proposed zoning law was intended “to remove impediments to the free practice of religion, such as allowing for smaller-scale places of worship customary to Orthodox Congregations which are precluded from driving on Holy Days.” (Id. ¶ 57.) Plaintiffs allege “[a]ny secular proposal of similar size and impact would not receive the special treatment accorded to OJC by the Village.” (id. ¶ 60.) Plaintiffs further allege no other religious organizations or members of the community were involved in the drafting of the proposed law and “no efforts [were] made to include other views of Village residents.” (id. ¶ 61.)
On May 29, 2018, the Village Planning Board issued a memorandum presenting its review of the proposed zoning law. (id. ¶ 64.) The memorandum stated that “[a] proliferation of houses of worship at the scale permitted by the Local Law will negatively impact homeowners by allowing for large structures to be built in single family zones.” (id.) The Village Planning Board recommended the Village to adopt a comprehensive plan prior to considering the proposed zoning law. (id. ¶ 65.) Plaintiffs also allege the Village Planning Board was concerned with the residential places of worship category, questioned why only OJC was considered in the drafting of the proposed law, and stated that the law was “designed to favor one religious institution over another.” (id. ¶¶ 66-67.) The Village Planning Board recommended elimination of the category “neighborhood places of worship” because it was “too intense of a use to be permitted on standard size residential lots.” (id. ¶ 68.) Plaintiffs allege that the Village Planning Board's various recommendations were ignored by the Village and no revisions were made in accordance with its comments. (id. ¶ 69.)
After the initial disclosure, the Village Board held several meetings regarding the proposed zoning law. (id. ¶ 63.) The first public hearing was on June 28, 2018. (id. ¶ 70.) At the meeting, Jonathan Lockland, a Village planner, explained the first draft of the proposed law and the three proposed categories of houses of worship. (id. ¶ 71.) Also at the meeting was Alan Sorenson, a professional planner, who opined that the proposed law had potential to fundamentally change the nature of the community because it would allow places of...
To continue reading
Request your trial