WESTCHESTER DAY SCHOOL V. VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK 504 F. 3d 338 (2d Cir. 2007) CASE BRIEF

WESTCHESTER DAY SCHOOL V. VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK

504 F. 3d 338 (2d Cir. 2007)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Village (D) appealed a judgment in favor of Westchester (P) wherein P sued alleging D's village zoning board's denial of a permit to expand P's facilities violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C.S. 2000cc et seq.

FACTS: P is located in D. Its facilities are situated on 25.75 acres of largely undeveloped land. There are four principal buildings on the property: the summer home (Estate House or Castle), the stable (Carriage House), Wolfson Hall, and the high school building. D's Village Code permits private schools to operate in 'R-20 Districts' if the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mamaroneck (ZBA or zoning board) grants them a special permit. P operates subject to obtaining such a permit which must be renewed every three years. P is a Jewish private school and offers a dual curriculum in Judaic and general studies. Even general studies classes are taught so that religious and Judaic concepts are reinforced. In grades first through eighth, students spend roughly half their day on general subjects such as mathematics and social studies and half on Judaic studies that include the Bible, the Talmud, and Jewish history. By 1998 P believed its current facilities inadequate to satisfy the school's needs. The school's enrollment has declined since 2001, a trend the district court attributed in part to D's. P decided to renovate Wolfson Hall and the Castle and to construct a new building, Gordon Hall, specifically designed to serve the existing student population. The renovations would add 12 new classrooms; a learning center; small-group instructional rooms; a multi-purpose room; therapy, counseling, art and music rooms; and computer and science labs. All of them were to be used from time to time for religious education and practice. P submitted an application for modification of its special permit to enable it to proceed with this $12 million expansion project. D voted unanimously to issue a 'negative declaration,' which constituted a finding that the project would have no significant adverse environmental impact and thus that consideration of the project could proceed. A small but vocal group in the Mamaroneck community opposed the project. As a result of this public opposition, D voted 3-2 to rescind the negative declaration. The effect of the rescission was to require P to prepare and submit a full Environmental Impact Statement. P sued D contending the rescission of the negative declaration violated RLUIPA. The district court held that the negative declaration had not been properly rescinded, and therefore remained in full force and effect. D proceeded to conduct additional public hearings to consider the merits of the application. D voted 3-2 to deny P's application in its entirety. D claimed that traffic and parking concerns were the main issue. Many of these grounds were conceived after D closed its hearing process, giving the school no opportunity to respond. The district court surmised that the application was in fact denied because D gave undue deference to the public opposition of the small but influential group of neighbors who were against the school's expansion plans. P amended its complaint challenging the denial of its application. It asserted claims under RLUIPA. The district court granted that motion, holding that D had violated RLUIPA. D appealed and the judgment was vacated. A bench trial resulted in an order for D to issue a special permit immediately, but reserved decision on damages and attorneys' fees pending appellate review. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner