Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck
504 F.3d 338 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a land-use regulation imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise when a government entity's denial of a permit is arbitrary, capricious, and leaves the religious institution with no viable alternative to accomplish its religious purpose.
Facts:
- Westchester Day School (WDS) is an Orthodox Jewish co-educational day school that provides a dual curriculum integrating Judaic and general studies.
- By 1998, WDS determined its existing facilities were inadequate to satisfy its religious and educational needs and hindered its mission.
- WDS developed a $12 million expansion project to renovate existing structures and construct a new building, Gordon Hall, with all new spaces intended for use in religious education and practice.
- In October 2001, WDS submitted an application to the Village of Mamaroneck's Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for a special permit modification to proceed with the project.
- Initially, in February 2002, the ZBA found the project would have no significant adverse environmental impact.
- Following opposition from a small group of neighbors, the ZBA reversed its earlier finding.
- On May 13, 2003, the ZBA voted 3-2 to deny WDS's application in its entirety.
- The ZBA's stated reasons for denial, including traffic and parking concerns, were found to be unsupported by evidence, based on factual errors and miscalculations, and contrary to the advice of its own experts.
Procedural Posture:
- Westchester Day School (WDS) sued the Village of Mamaroneck and its Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York after the ZBA rescinded an initial environmental finding.
- The district court granted WDS partial summary judgment, reinstating the environmental finding.
- Following further hearings, the ZBA denied WDS’s permit application in its entirety.
- WDS filed an amended complaint in the district court, challenging the denial under RLUIPA.
- The district court granted summary judgment for WDS.
- The Village of Mamaroneck (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- After a seven-day bench trial, the district court again entered judgment for WDS (appellee), finding a RLUIPA violation and ordering the Village to issue the permit.
- The Village of Mamaroneck (appellant) appealed the district court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a village zoning board's arbitrary and capricious denial of a religious school's application to expand its facilities, which are used for religious exercise, impose a substantial burden on that religious exercise in violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardamone, J.
Yes, the ZBA's denial imposes a substantial burden in violation of RLUIPA. To establish a RLUIPA violation, a plaintiff must show that a land use regulation substantially burdens its religious exercise. First, the court found WDS's expansion project constituted 'religious exercise' because every planned room would be used, at least in part, for religious education. Second, the court determined the ZBA's denial imposed a 'substantial burden' because it was not a neutral, generally applicable land use decision but was arbitrary and capricious. The ZBA's stated justifications were unsupported by evidence, based on factual errors, and demonstrated an 'arbitrary blindness to the facts,' suggesting the denial was not made in good faith. The burden was substantial because the denial was absolute, not conditional, and WDS had no other feasible alternatives to remedy the gross inadequacies of its facilities. Finally, the Village failed to meet its burden of showing the denial furthered a compelling governmental interest by the least restrictive means, as its reasons were pretextual and it could have approved the permit with conditions rather than denying it outright.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'substantial burden' analysis under RLUIPA in the context of zoning disputes. It establishes that the arbitrary and capricious nature of a government's decision-making process can itself be evidence of a substantial burden, especially when it suggests unequal treatment of a religious institution. This moves the inquiry beyond merely the practical effect of the denial to also scrutinize the legitimacy and good faith of the government's actions. By linking arbitrariness to the substantial burden test, the case provides religious institutions a powerful tool to challenge zoning denials that appear pretextual or are based on community hostility rather than legitimate land-use concerns.
Unlock the full brief for Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck