What was the suit about?<\/h2>\n
UPDATE (11\/20\/22): Plaintiffs filed another amended complaint on Friday, 11\/18.\u00a0 It will take a little while to evaluate the new \/ changing claims)<\/span><\/p>\n As per Plaintiffs:<\/p>\n “This case is about religious liberties and the discriminatory and unequal practices of the Teaneck, its employees, and its Zoning Board of Adjustments… Despite years and thousands of dollars spent to appease the Defendants\u2019 unlawful and discriminatory requirements, Defendants continue to act in violation of the Constitutions of the United States and New Jersey, as well as the Federal law explicitly prohibiting religious discrimination by discriminating against the Plaintiffs and imposing an unlawful burden on the practice of their faith.” Did the town discriminate against AUCC? Or was something else going on?<\/p>\n As it turned out, Judge McNulty said the case was more about the difficulties of land use and getting projects through boards.<\/p>\n “AUCC\u2019s frustration is palpable. It emphasizes in the amended complaint that it has been \u201cgoing through this process for years with no end in sight.\u201d (Compl. \u00b6213.) Adding insult to injury, the ZBA has demanded that AUCC put up more money to fund its continued application process. (Id. \u00b6162.) The delay and AUCC\u2019s frustration, however, are hardly unique in the annals of local land use regulation, and the process does seem to be at least potentially moving ahead, on a revised legal basis.” Let’s run through the opinion:<\/p>\n In the complaint, Plaintiffs state:<\/p>\n On October 1, 2020, Defendants denied Plaintiffs\u2019 BOA application. Judge McNulty:<\/p>\n “At the motion to dismiss stage, a court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.\u00a0 The court is not required, however, \u201cto credit factual allegations contradicted by indisputably authentic documents on which the complaint relies.\u201d” (cleaned up).<\/p>\n “In this instance, the complaint is grounded in part on the ZBA\u2019s alleged denial of AUCC\u2019s application on October 1, 2020; hence, the court may consider the undisputedly authentic decision of the ZBA, which the defendants attached to their briefs.3<\/sup> Because the ZBA\u2019s decision makes it clear that AUCC\u2019s application was dismissed without prejudice, I will not credit the allegation in the complaint that the application was ever formally and finally denied.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Plain English: AUCC said that they were denied before the zoning board, but the zoning board didn’t deny them (no formal or final decision was ever reached) and the Judge wasn’t buying it.<\/p>\n Plaintiffs also alleged in the complaint:<\/p>\n “No variance or appeal to the BOA is required and the permit should have been granted outright.” Again, Judge McNulty was not so sure this was true:<\/p>\n “I also will not credit the allegation that, under the then-prevailing zoning classification, no use variance from the ZBA was required for AUCC\u2019s proposed community cente<\/strong>r. The Teaneck development regulations, of which I take judicial notice, do not list community centers under the permitted uses in the Public Lands zone. Although recreational facilities are allowed in the Public Lands zone, AUCC emphasizes throughout its complaint that it sought to create a religious community center with a range of amenities, including recreational facilities. (See, e.g., Compl. \u00b66.) Indeed, AUCC itself, in another connection, accuses the defendants of \u201cpurposefully misconstru[ing] the Site as a recreational and community facility, rather than the Religious Community Center that it is.\u201d (Id. \u00b6126.) It may be apparent, as AUCC says, that a variance should have been granted, but it is not at all apparent that one was not required<\/strong>.” (emphasis added) There were three main issues in the opinion:<\/p>\n Ripeness<\/span>: Were the issues “ripe” for the Court to hear or did they have to be explored further before the land use board? Mootness<\/span>: Did a change of ordinance by the Township “moot” various issues raised in the complaint, and foreclose adjudication by the court because there was no longer a case and controversy? Exhaustion<\/span>: Did the plaintiff go through all procedural steps in the process (to “exhaust” the available remedies) before going to court? When AUCC’s zoning issues first came before the Town Council, I advocated for changing the zoning ordinance.\u00a0 The reason for a zoning change was simple: one variance was required based on the zoning that did not apply.<\/p>\n Here, a “P” (Public) zone was in place because the lot used to be a public school.\u00a0 Now, the private entity which bought the building sought to create a community center.\u00a0 It was appropriate to update the zoning to reflect the change in use from a public school..<\/p>\n Judge McNulty:<\/p>\n “Were it not for the passage of the Ordinance, I might be inclined to agree with AUCC on the ripeness issue<\/span>. That Ordinance, however, presents an additional wrinkle not present in the cited case law.\u00a0 This is not merely a case of waiting in vain for the ZBA to change its mind<\/span>. Rather, the Township seems to have stepped in and taken back responsibility from the ZBA<\/span>; it passed the Ordinance, which changed the regulatory environment in a manner facially favorable to AUCC\u2019s application<\/span>. Pursuant to the Ordinance, the property is now located in the Community Center Overlay district, where community center use is explicitly allowed. (DE 94, Ex. A.) It is thus more than possible that a renewed application to the Township could result in the issuance of a permit without any need to seek a use variance from the ZBA. AUCC has not alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate that it would be futile to pursue this path, which could circumvent the ZBA entirely.” “When it comes to ripeness, the critical question is \u201cwhether there might be a better time to hear the case down the road.\u201d See Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ, Inc. v. City of Hackensack (cleaned up). Through passage of the Ordinance, the Township has in effect reasserted its primacy and relegated the ZBA to the back seat<\/strong>. To go forward on that basis, rather than attempting to dissect and correct the prior ZBA proceedings, seems by far the better course.\u00a0 AUCC\u2019s sweeping claims for injunctive relief, as presented, would require the Court to step into the shoes of the ZBA and grant all permits and approvals sought. A far superior time to hear such a case would be after the AUCC has applied anew to the Township under the Ordinance.<\/strong> Of course, it is still possible that the Township could deny certain parts of the application, requiring AUCC to involve the ZBA, but that possibility is precisely the point: AUCC\u2019s claims for injunctive relief rest upon the contingent future event of how the Township would respond to its renewed application.5 It is at least plausible that the Township enacted the Ordinance, not to stymie AUCC\u2019s application, but to relieve the impasse before the ZBA. Until AUCC applies, we will not know how the new Ordinance affects its proposal. And it would make little sense for this Court to preemptively state that such an application must be granted irrespective of its content or its relation to these newly enacted standards. (emphasis added) <\/p>\n\n\n
\n– Page 2 of amended complaint<\/a> (Introduction)<\/p>\n\n\n![\"20cv14181](\"https:\/\/www.teanecktoday.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/20cv14181-AUCC_83-Amended-Complaint-thumb.png\" "\\"20cv14181")
\n 20cv14181 (AUCC)_83 Amended Complaint<\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/blockquote>\n
\n– Opinion<\/a> at page 14<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n– Amended complaint at 225<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nAmended Complaint<\/a> at 49<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nOpinion<\/a> at page 11<\/p><\/blockquote>\nRipeness, Mootness, and Exhaustion<\/h2>\n
\nYou can find the Ripeness discussion on page 7 of the opinion<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nYou can find the Mootness discussion on page 9 of the opinion<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\nYou can find the Exhaustion discussion in footnote 2 on page 8 of the opinion<\/a>.<\/p>\nCouncil action changed the calculus<\/h3>\n
\nOpinion at page 14<\/a><\/p>\n
\nOpinion at page 15<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
![\"20cv14181](\"https:\/\/www.teanecktoday.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/20cv14181-AUCC_128-Order-thumb.png\" "\\"20cv14181")
\n ![\"20cv14181](\"https:\/\/www.teanecktoday.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/20cv14181-AUCC_127-Opinion-thumb.png\" "\\"20cv14181")
\n