DAVID N. KELLEY
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
By: LISA R. ZORNBERG (LZ-1299)
LAWRENCE H. FOGELMAN (LF-9700)
Assistant United States Attorneys
86 Chambers Street
New York, New York 10007
Telephone: (212) 637-2800
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
- v. -
05 Civ.
THE VILLAGE OF AIRMONT, THE VILLAGE
OF AIRMONT BOARD OF TRUSTEES, and
THE VILLAGE OF AIRMONT PLANNING
BOARD,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiff United States of America (the "United States" or the "Government"), upon
information and belief, alleges for its complaint as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This action is brought by the United States to enforce the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. ("RLUIPA"), and to
redress discrimination based upon religion in violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601
et seq.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(f), 42 U.S.C. § 3614(a), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345.
3. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(f), the United States is authorized to
commence suit against a local government for injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce
compliance with RLUIPA. The United States is authorized, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3614, to
commence suit to enforce the Fair Housing Act.
4. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
THE PARTIES
5. Plaintiff is the United States.
6. Defendant Village of Airmont ("Airmont") is a "government" within the
meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(4)(A).
7. Defendants Village of Airmont Board of Trustees and Village of Airmont
Planning Board are branches, departments, agencies, or instrumentalities of a "government" within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(4)(A). (Airmont, its Board of Trustees, and its Planning
Board, will be collectively referred to as "Defendants.")
BACKGROUND
8. Airmont is located within the Town of Ramapo ("Ramapo"), in Rockland
County, New York.
9. Ramapo consists of twelve incorporated villages, including Airmont, and
unincorporated sections.
10. Airmont was incorporated in 1991.
11. Airmont enacted its own zoning code in 1993 (the "Zoning Code").
12. The Zoning Code has been in effect in Airmont from 1993 to date.
A. Airmont's Prohibition of Religious Boarding Schools
13. Under Airmont's Zoning Code, there is no "as of right" permission to
operate a school, secular or religious, anywhere in the Village.
14. The Zoning Code permits schools only as "conditional uses," subject to
approval by Airmont's Planning Board.
15. Airmont's Zoning Code also prohibits any school from having on-campus
dormitory housing. Specifically, the Zoning Code conditionally permits "[s]chools of general or
religious instruction and buildings for religious instruction, provided that there shall be no
residential uses upon the lot other than a guard or caretaker's dwelling." Zoning Code, Art. III,
Sec. 5.1(B)(14), 5.2(B)(14) 5.3(B)(11), 5.4 B(11), 5.5(B)(9), 5.6(B)(9) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the Zoning Code, on its face, prohibits religious boarding schools (i.e., religious
schools with on-campus residential student housing) from operating anywhere in Airmont.
16. At the time Airmont enacted its Zoning Code, the Hasidic community
operated religious boarding schools in Ramapo and other areas of Rockland County and New
York State. Airmont included the Zoning Code prohibition on boarding schools in order to prevent
Hasidic boarding schools from operating in Airmont.
17. While Airmont's Zoning Code bans boarding schools from operating in any
district of Airmont, the Zoning code permits other building projects that entail group residential
components. For example, the Zoning Code permits the construction and operation of community
residence facilities for the disabled; "family and group care" facilities; camps, including sleep-away camps; hospitals; and nursing homes. Such land uses are permitted even in the most rural
zoned districts of the Village.
18. The Zoning Code also permits construction of hotels and motels in
Airmont's shopping district.
19. Airmont's Zoning Code also designates a specialized housing district for
construction and operation of housing developments for senior citizens and persons with physical
disabilities.
20. In or about 2003, Airmont permitted construction and operation of the
"Retreat at Airmont," a six-building, upscale condominium development for persons over age 55,
which includes a recreation building and swimming pool.
21. In 2003, Airmont also permitted construction and operation of the "Airmont
Gardens" complex, a building project including approximately 140 housing units for seniors.
22. Accordingly, while the Zoning Code completely prohibits all schools from
having group residential housing, it permits other non-religious building projects that
accommodate group residential needs.
B. Airmont's Denial of the Application of Congregation Mischknois Lavier Yakov
23. Congregation Mischknois Lavier Yakov ("the Congregation") is a religious
congregation of Hasidic Jews. For purposes of RLUIPA, the Congregation constitutes a "religious
assembly or institution." 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1).
24. It is the Congregation's religious practice and belief that, when Hasidic
boys reach the age of approximately 15 years, they are sent to live and study at religious boarding
schools (called "yeshivas" or "campus yeshivas") to pursue their religious studies for an indefinite
period of time. Members of the Congregation believe that it is essential for these boys to live,
study and pray in the same place in order to minimize outside influences and to intensify the
religious learning experience.
25. Because promoting religious education as a way of Hasidic life is central to
the Congregation's religious belief and practice, students are encouraged to continue learning in
the same intense, on-campus yeshiva environment even after they marry.
26. In 2001, the Congregation purchased a 19-acre tract of land located in
Airmont, on Hillside Avenue near the border of New Jersey ("the Property").
27. The Property is located within the "RR-50" district of Airmont, a rural
residential zone requiring lots that are a minimum of 50,000 square feet.
28. In or about April 2002, the Congregation applied to the Airmont Planning
Board for a conditional use permit and site plan approval to build their religious school
(collectively, "the application"). The Congregation's application included the proposed
construction of two types of on-campus student housing: a dormitory building to accommodate up
to 200 unmarried students, and 72 townhouses to accommodate married students and staff.
29. The student dormitory and student townhouses proposed in the
Congregations' application are "dwellings," as that term is defined by the Fair Housing Act. 42
U.S.C. § 3602.
30. The Congregation's desire to use its Property to build a religious school
qualifies as "religious exercise" within the meaning of RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A) &
(B).
31. In support of its application, the Congregation submitted an environmental
study prepared by the Congregation's engineers addressing the school's anticipated impact on
environmental issues, including traffic, sewage, electricity, health and safety. That study
concluded that construction and operation of the school would pose no adverse environmental
impact.
32. Pursuant to New York state law, the Airmont Planning Board referred the
Congregation's application to the Rockland County Department of Planning for comment. On or
about May 30, 2002, Rockland County's Department of Planning recommended that the
Congregation's application be denied because the Congregation's plan to build and operate a
religious boarding school on the Property was inconsistent with Airmont's zoning prohibition on
residential student housing.
33. On or about June 24, 2002, the Village of Airmont, by its Planning Board,
denied the Congregation's application. The sole basis cited by Airmont's Planning Board for
denying the Congregation's application was the Zoning Code's prohibition on residential student
housing.
34. Airmont has not identified any compelling government interest for denying
the Congregation's application or for the Zoning Code's ban on all schools with residential student
housing -- regardless of the proposed school's size, location within Airmont, or the capacity or
type of on-campus housing.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of Section 2(a) of RLUIPA)
35. Paragraphs 1 through 34 are realleged and incorporated in this paragraph by
reference.
36. Defendants' ban on religious boarding schools, on its face and as applied,
substantially burdens the religious exercise of members of the Congregation and other Hasidic
Jews with similarly held beliefs. Specifically, the Zoning Code makes it impossible for the
Congregation and other Hasidic Jews with similarly held beliefs to engage in the religious
educational experience that their faith mandates.
37. Defendants' ban on religious boarding schools does not further a
compelling government interest, or even if it does, it is not the least restrictive means of furthering
that compelling government interest.
38. The substantial burden imposed by Airmont's zoning ban on religious
boarding schools, and by Airmont's denial of the Congregation's application, affects commerce
within the meaning of RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(B).
39. Defendants' denial of the Congregation's application constitutes the
imposition or implementation of land use regulations whereby Defendants made, or had in place
formal or informal procedures or practices of, individualized assessments regarding the
Congregation's application within the meaning of RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(2)(C).
40. Defendants' zoning ban on religious boarding schools, on its face and as
applied to the Congregation, violates Section 2(a) of RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1).
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of Section 2(b)(2) of RLUIPA)
41. Paragraphs 1 through 34 are realleged and incorporated in this paragraph by
reference.
42. Defendants' zoning ban on religious boarding schools, and Defendants'
application of that ban to the Congregation, constitutes the imposition or implementation of a land
use regulation that discriminates, and continues to discriminate, against the Congregation on the
basis of religion or religious denomination, in violation of Section 2(b)(2) of RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc(b)(2).
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violation of the Fair Housing Act)
43. Paragraphs 1 through 34 are realleged and incorporated in this paragraph by
reference.
44. Defendants, in denying the Congregation's application to build a religious
boarding school with residential student housing, has discriminated against the Congregation by
making residential student housing "unavailable" in the Village of Airmont because of religion, in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).
45. Defendants' zoning code provision prohibiting residential student housing
from existing anywhere in the Village of Airmont discriminates against the Congregation, and
Hasidic Jews with similarly held beliefs, based on religion, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).
46. Members of the Congregation are aggrieved persons as that term is defined
in the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3602(i), and they have suffered damages as a result of
Defendants' conduct.
47. Defendants' conduct constitutes a denial to a group of persons of rights
granted by Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq., which denial
raises an issue of general public importance.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, the United States, prays that this Court enter judgment that:
A. Declares that the Village of Airmont zoning code's ban on residential
student housing, codified in the Airmont zoning code at Article III, Sections 5.1(B)(14),
5.2(B)(14), 5.3(B)(11), 5.4 B(11), 5.5(B)(9), 5.6(B)(9), violates RLUIPA and the Fair Housing
Act;
B. Enjoins Defendants, their officers, employers, agents, successors and all
other persons in active concert or participation with them, from (a) applying Airmont's laws in a
manner that substantially burdens the Congregation's religious exercise and (b) discriminating
against the Congregation on the basis or religion or religious denomination;
C. Orders Defendants to amend the Airmont zoning code to permit residential
student housing in Airmont;
D. Enjoins Defendants, their officers, employees, agents, successors and all
other persons in active concert or participation with them, from adopting or enforcing any zoning
restriction, or from applying their laws in a manner that, violates RLUIPA or the Fair Housing Act;
E. Assesses civil penalties against Defendants, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 3614(d)(1); and
F. Grants such further relief as the Court may deem just, together with the
United States' costs and disbursements in this action.
Dated: ___________ __, 2005
ALBERTO R. GONZALES
Attorney General
By: ____________________________
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
DAVID N. KELLEY
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
By: ____________________________
LISA R. ZORNBERG (LZ-1299)
LAWRENCE H. FOGELMAN (LF-9700)
Assistant United States Attorneys
86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 637-2800
Document Filed: June 10, 2005