Westchester Day School v. Village Of Mamaroneck

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

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

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 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.