CONGREGATION RABBINICAL COLLEGE OF TARTIKOV, INC., RABBI MORDECHAI BABAD, RABBI WOLF BRIEF, RABBI HERMAN KAHANA, RABBI MEIR MARGULIS, RABBI MEILECH MENCZER, RABBI JACOB HERSHKOWITZ, RABBI CHAIM ROSENBERG, RABBI DAVID A. MENCZER, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants,
v.
VILLAGE OF POMONA, NY, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF POMONA, NY, NICHOLAS L. SANDERSON, as Mayor, IAN BANKS, as Trustee and in his official capacity, ALMA SANDERS-ROMAN, as Trustee and in her official capacity, RITA LOUIE, as Trustee and in her official capacity, BRETT YAGEL, as Trustee and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees. RABBI GERGELY NEUMAN, RABBI KOLEL BELZ, of Monsey, RABBI ARYEH ROYDE, RABBI AKIVA POLLACK, Plaintiffs,
Argued: April 18, 2019
Congregation
Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc. and future students and
faculty sued the Village of Pomona and several village
officials, challenging four amendments to the Village of
Pomona's zoning law as violations of federal and New York
law. Tartikov argued principally that Pomona adopted the
challenged laws based on religious animus against Tartikov.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Karas, J.) dismissed Tartikov's
complaint in part and later resolved certain claims in the
defendants' favor on a motion for summary judgment. The
remaining claims proceeded to a bench trial, which concluded
with a verdict for Tartikov on those claims. The defendants
appeal from the final judgment, while Tartikov cross-appeals
to challenge the earlier orders dismissing certain of its
claims and granting summary judgment to the defendants on
others.
Tartikov
lacks Article III standing to pursue some of its claims. We
VACATE the judgment with respect to those
claims and REMAND with instructions for
dismissal. As to the remaining claims that went to trial, we
REVERSE the judgment to the extent the
claims invoke two of the challenged laws, but we
AFFIRM insofar as the claims invoke the
remaining two. Finally, we AFFIRM with
respect to the dismissal and summary judgment orders
challenged on cross-appeal.
Thomas
J. Donlon, Robinson & Cole LLP, Stamford, CT (John F. X.
Peloso Jr., Robinson & Cole LLP, Stamford, CT; Marci A.
Hamilton, Washington Crossing, PA, on the brief), for
Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees.
Roman
Storzer, Washington, DC (Joseph A. Churgin, Donna C. Sobel,
Savad Churgin, Nanuet, NY; John G. Stepanovich, Stepanovich
Law, PLC, Virginia Beach, VA, on the brief), for
Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants.
Before: Wesley and Chin, Circuit Judges; and Kaplan, District
Judge. [*]
KAPLAN, DISTRICT JUDGE
This
case poses difficult and in some respects subtle questions.
Educational and religious institutions, as owners and users
of real estate, are generally subject to local land use
regulation. But they play unique roles in our society. Hence,
our laws afford them some special treatment with respect to
such regulation. Moreover, religious institutions enjoy the
protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and federal
legislation, each of which, in appropriate circumstances,
trumps local land use law.
Given
the importance in our free society of education, religion,
and the usually legitimate desires of communities to regulate
the manner in which the land within their boundaries is
developed and used, conflicts arise when these interests come
into tension. In resolving such conflicts, courts must
differentiate among opposition to proposed land uses based on
(1) legitimate development concerns like traffic volume,
density, and sufficiency of municipal infrastructure, (2)
bias against the religious faith or practices of the
developer or of likely residents of new development, whether
overt or hidden by legitimate-seeming pretext, and (3) mixed
motives. These appeals reflect one such conflict.
In
2004, Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, Inc.
("TRC") purchased about 100 acres of land in the
Village of Pomona, New York ("Pomona" or the
"Village"), a small suburban village of about 3,
200 people. As its name indicates, TRC hoped to use the
property to build a school to educate rabbinical judges. But
TRC submitted no concrete development proposals nor sought
any zoning or construction approvals in the ensuing years.
In
January 2007, a local group published an article purporting
to reveal that TRC's plan was to build nine large
apartment buildings to house 1, 000 students and their
families - a total of as many as 4, 500 people - as well as a
school building. This provoked local opposition. Soon after,
the Village board enacted two amendments to its land use laws
limiting or outright prohibiting whatever development TRC
ultimately might seek to build.
TRC and
future students and faculty (collectively,
"Tartikov") filed this action against the Village
and its board of trustees seeking to declare unconstitutional
the two amendments enacted after its plans became known. In
addition, it challenged two other amendments that had been
passed earlier. After a bench trial, the district court found
that all four zoning law amendments were tainted by religious
animus, enjoined their enforcement, and entered a broad
injunction sweeping away or modifying for these plaintiffs
New York State and local laws that otherwise would apply. The
Village challenges the decision below. Its central contention
is that the findings of religious animus were clearly
erroneous. Tartikov cross appeals from a number of pretrial
rulings that limited the scope of its claims.
After
careful consideration of the extensive record, we decline to
overturn the district court's findings that religious
animus motivated the two zoning amendments passed after the
plaintiffs' wishes became known and thus affirm the
injunction barring their enforcement. But we respectfully
conclude that there was insufficient evidence to support such
a finding as to either of the two earlier zoning amendments
and therefore reverse that portion of the judgment. We
conclude also that the injunctive relief went further than
was appropriate and modify those aspects of the judgment as
well. We affirm as to the cross-appeal.
FACTS
The
governmental and legal context in which the amendments to the
Pomona zoning law ordinance were enacted is important to a
full understanding of this case. We therefore begin by
sketching that framework.
I.
The Context
A.
Local Government in New York
New
York State is home to over 1, 600 local
governments.[1] The entire state is divided among 62
counties, each of which has its own local
government.[2]Each of the 57 counties outside New York
City is divided into towns and in some instances one or more
cities, each of which also has its own local
government.[3]There are, in addition, hundreds of
villages throughout the state, some coextensive with towns
but most within larger towns. As is now a familiar motif,
each has its own government.[4] Unlike counties, cities, and
towns, New York's villages "exist at the discretion
of [their] residents"; they "can be created or
dissolved by local initiative."[5] According to New York's
Department of State's Division of Local Government
Services, one reason town residents might create a village is
"a difference in development philosophies of citizens
and town officials."[6]
Village
governments draw their authority to enact and enforce zoning
regulations from numerous sources, including the Statute of
Local Governments, [7]the Municipal Home Rule Law, [8] and the Village
Law.[9]
A village exercises that authority, as well as the authority
to enact other legislation, through a board of trustees,
[10]
which typically consists of an elected mayor and four elected
trustees.[11]The Village Law gives a board of trustees
the authority to regulate various aspects of land use within
its domain.[12] When a board of trustees regulates land
use, it is obliged to follow a "comprehensive
plan."[13] A comprehensive plan identifies the
goals, policies, and instruments for the short and long term
growth and development of the village.[14]
B.
Local Zoning Ordinances and Other Land Use Controls
Village
and other local governments in New York exercise their land
use authority through land use controls, the most common type
of which is a zoning ordinance.[15] Zoning typically entails
dividing a municipality's entire territory into districts
and imposing land use restrictions within them.[16] Zoning
ordinances can achieve many goals related to community
planning, among the most common of which are prescribing
minimum lot and maximum building sizes that control the
density of development and permitting or proscribing the use
of land in each zoning district for specific purposes such as
agricultural, commercial, or residential.[17]
Numerous
federal and state laws limit the exercise of land use control
powers.[18] One important limitation is the New York
State Environmental Quality Review Act
("SEQRA").[19] SEQRA requires state agencies, including
municipalities, "to incorporate the consideration of
environmental factors into the . . . planning, review[, ] and
decision-making processes."[20] It requires that a
municipality considering a significant land use control
ordinarily must prepare or request an environmental impact
statement ("EIS") early in the planning
process.[21] An EIS is a document that weighs the
"social, economic[, ] and environmental factors" of
a municipality's proposed decision or regulation, which
includes considering alternative actions and mitigating
factors.[22] After completing an EIS, each agency
involved in the planning process must issue a findings
statement that provides a rationale for its decision in light
of the EIS.[23]
C.
Municipal Regulation of Land Used for Religious and
Educational Purposes
Land
use regulation becomes more complicated when affected
property belongs to religious or educational institutions -
entities that, as noted previously, enjoy certain legal
rights unavailable to ordinary landowners. As TRC is a
religious educational institution, the terrain here is
particularly rugged.
The New
York Court of Appeals thoroughly surveyed this landscape in
Cornell University v. Bagnardi.[24] Beginning
with a history it deemed essential to understanding the
respective positions of religious schools and municipal land
use regulators, the court emphasized the "special
treatment" that schools and churches often have enjoyed
"with respect to residential zoning
ordinances."[25] This "favored status," which
has included "expan[sion] into neighborhoods where
nonconforming uses would otherwise not have been
allowed," was unobjectionable in the nation's early
years.[26] But with growing populations and the
advent of the automobile, citizens began viewing schools -
particularly universities, which were the subject of the
Bagnardi court's discussion - as disturbances,
rather than benefits to the neighborhood.[27] "With
this change in attitude, courts were thrust into the role of
protecting [religious and] educational institutions from
community hostility."[28]
New
York courts did this in several ways. On occasion, they
struck down "[z]oning ordinances that imposed
limitations on the construction of public schools" or
that interfered with the First Amendment rights of religious
schools.[29]On others, they "held that schools,
public, parochial[, ] and private, by their very nature,
singularly serve the public's welfare and
morals."[30] Accordingly, the New York Court of
Appeals has concluded that "the total exclusion of such
institutions from a residential district serves no end that
is reasonably related to the morals, health, welfare[, ] and
safety of the community."[31] "[T]otal exclusion is
beyond the scope of the localities' zoning
authority."[32]
This
did not mean that schools and religious institutions were
exempt from zoning rules - a result that would have
"render[ed] municipalities powerless in the face of a
religious or educational institution's proposed
expansion, no matter how offensive, overpowering[, ] or
unsafe to a residential neighborhood."[33]
Bagnardi explained how local authorities should
balance the competing interests at stake:
"The controlling consideration in reviewing the request
of a school or church for permission to expand into a
residential area must always be the over-all impact on the
public's welfare. Although the special treatment afforded
schools and churches stems from their presumed beneficial
effect on the community, there are many instances in which a
particular educational or religious use may actually detract
from the public's health, safety, welfare[, ] or morals.
In those instances, the institution may be properly denied.
There is simply no conclusive presumption that any religious
or educational use automatically outweighs its ill effects.
The presumed beneficial effect may be rebutted with evidence
of a significant impact on traffic congestion, property
values, municipal services[, ] and the like.
"Thus, educational and religious uses which would
unarguably be contrary to the public's health, safety[, ]
or welfare need not be permitted at all. . . . Such uses,
which are clearly not what the court had in mind when it
stated that traffic and similar problems are outweighed by
the benefits a church or school brings, are unquestionably
within the municipality's police power to exclude
altogether. Even religious and educational institutions must
accommodate to factors directly relevant to public health,
safety[, ] or welfare, inclusive of fire and similar
emergency risks, and traffic conditions insofar as they
involve public safety.
"Less extreme forms of expansion that are nonetheless
obnoxious to the community's residents, of course,
require a more balanced approach than total exclusion. In
Matter of Westchester Reform Temple v. Brown, the
court recognized that considerations which may wholly justify
the exclusion of commercial structures from residential areas
may be considered for the purpose of minimizing, insofar as
practicable, the impairment of surrounding areas or the
danger of traffic hazards. A special permit may be required
and reasonable conditions directly related to the
public's health, safety[, ] and welfare may be imposed to
the same extent that they may be imposed on noneducational
applicants. Thus, a zoning ordinance may properly provide
that the granting of a special permit to churches or schools
may be conditioned on the effect the use would have on
traffic congestion, property values, municipal services, the
general plan for development of the community, etc. The
requirement of a special permit application, which entails
disclosure of site plans, parking facilities, and other
features of the institution's proposed use, is beneficial
in that it affords zoning boards an opportunity to weigh the
proposed use in relation to neighboring land uses and to
cushion any adverse effects by the imposition of conditions
designed to mitigate them. These conditions, if reasonably
designed to counteract the deleterious effects on the
public's welfare of a proposed religious or educational
use should be upheld by the courts, provided they do not, by
their cost, magnitude[, ] or volume, operate indirectly to
exclude such uses altogether."[34]
The
foregoing, of course, was an explication principally of New
York law, which is informed with respect to religious land
use by constitutional principles applicable to religious
institutions. But to be absolutely clear, the Supremacy
Clause of the Constitution demands, as it always has done,
that state law yield to the imperatives of more demanding
federal law including the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
II.
Facts
A.
Pomona and Its Zoning Ordinance
The
Village of Pomona was incorporated in Rockland County, New
York in 1967.[35] It is governed by a board of trustees,
which consists of the mayor, deputy mayor, and three
trustees.[36] At the times relevant here, the entire
Village was designated as an R-40 residential zoning
district.[37] Thus, the entire Village was zoned to
permit only single-family residential development on lots of
at least 40, 000 square feet.[38]
B.
The Subject Property and Pomona's Zoning
Ordinance
1.
Camp Dora and Yeshiva Spring Valley
The 100
acres at issue here are on the southwestern side of Pomona.
For years it had been the site of a summer camp known as Camp
Dora.[39] At some point prior to December 1999 -
the record does not indicate when - an entity named Yeshiva
Spring Valley ("YSV") acquired the
parcel.[40] Initially, YSV continued operating a
summer camp on the site, but its goal was to build a
yeshiva[41] on the property.[42]
a.
December 1999 Informal Planning Board Meeting
On
December 15, 1999, a representative of YSV, Rabbi Fromowitz,
met with the Village planning board, the members of which
then were Mel Cool, Alan Lamer, Alma Roman, Joy Shulman, and
Nik Winter.[43] Also present was Mark Healey, a
representative of Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc.
("FPC"), then the Village's planning
consultant.[44]
YSV did
not present the planning board with any specific building
plans or application. Rather, it made an informal
presentation regarding the yeshiva it hoped to apply to build
in the future.[45] Rabbi Fromowitz explained that YSV
wished to build a primary school for children in kindergarten
through the eighth grade and a preschool for younger
children.[46] The primary school would be
approximately 100, 000 square feet[47] and would accommodate
roughly 800 students.[48] The preschool building would be
approximately 30, 000 square feet[49] and include a large
synagogue.[50]
During
the meeting, Roman asked if YSV planned to build dormitories
at the schools. Rabbi Fromowitz answered that it did not.
Roman repeated the question twice more, mentioning a rumor
"floating around" that YSV did intend to build
dormitories.[51] Rabbi Fromowitz repeated that YSV had no
such intention. He explained that the development would be a
primary school and that "[p]rimary school children
should be living at home."[52]
Planning
board member Lamer asked the Rabbi if YSV had done traffic
studies.[53] Rabbi Fromowitz replied that it
had.[54] Roman then asked if there would be any
other structures built on the property.[55] Rabbi
Fromowitz replied that "we have no plans for further
development. There's nothing on the table that we are
planning at this moment. If there would be a future plan we
would come before the Planning Board once again for
additional, you know, development. But I can't tell you
right now of any other development because there is nothing,
that we're planning at this point."[56]
Mark
Healey, the FPC representative, then interjected the
following:
"Mr. Chairman, if I could offer some comments to the
Board. I took a look at the zoning for schools in the Village
and they really stink, to put it straight. The[] only
requirement is that they have to have five acres of land and
the setbacks have to be twice what is ordinarily
required.[57] So that leaves an open question of
issues that several members of the Board brought up. What can
happen in the future? It looks okay now, but look at the
property, it's 100 acres and there's a lot of
potential out there. So, I would recommend that perhaps the
applicant going back and doing more detailed plans, and doing
a traffic study and everything else for the Village to
seriously consider looking at it[s] requirements for schools
and address such issues as perhaps, more detailed or more
tailored lot area requirements. It's common to have lot
area based on the number of students. So you can have say 5
acres, and say you have to have another .1 acre per student.
So you wouldn't restrict them from doing what they want
to do but it would assure the Village that they're not
going to go down the road and develop a lot more in the
future. Especially considering the constrained nature of the
site and also the constrained nature of the surrounding road
ways, in terms of traffic."[58]
In
response to Healey's comments, the board chairman, Mel
Cook, asked whether YSV would have the ability to build an
additional school in the future or if the Village could
"limit that."[59] Healey replied that the Village could
not prohibit building schools but could "put reasonable
standards on their development and
operations."[60] He added that he thought the Village
should consider changes to the Village code for schools
"from a planning perspective, in terms of property
constraints, traffic and what would be appropriate" for
the Camp Dora property and others in the
Village.[61]
Following
the meeting with Rabbi Fromowitz, FPC prepared several
memoranda for Mayor Herbert Marshall and the Village board of
trustees addressing the YSV proposal and recommending
amendments to the Village zoning law.[62] FPC noted in
a January 24, 2000 memorandum that "it quickly became
apparent" from a review of "the existing standards
for schools in the Village's Zoning Law" that
"the current standards for schools . . . are rather
scant and would not adequately control the total/future
development of a school property."[63] The
memorandum continued:
"For example, based on the 10 percent maximum permitted
building coverage requirement the subject property[,
i.e., YSV property, formerly Camp Dora, ] could
theoretically be developed with over 800, 000 square feet of
floor space. While this amount of development is highly
unlikely due to the development constraints presented by the
steep slopes and wetlands on the property, it does point out
the inadequacy of the current standards."[64]
FPC
recommended, among other things, making schools subject to
special permit approval by the board of trustees,
[65]
revising lot area requirements, implementing limits aimed at
controlling development intensity, and changing the
definition of "school" to include
preschools.[66]
b.
December 2000 Board of Trustees Meeting
Eleven
months later, Pomona trustees Ian Banks and Nick Sanderson,
Deputy Mayor Al Appel, and Mayor Herbert Marshall addressed
these matters.[67] On December 18, 2000, they considered
whether the definition of "school" in any new law
should include both public and private schools, rather than
private schools alone, in light of their understanding that
state law already regulated public schools.[68] They
discussed also the recommendation to change schools from
"permitted uses" "to uses subject to special
permit approval."[69] The group indicated that adopting
school-related changes to the Village code was a priority
that it hoped to accomplish within two months. Mayor Marshall
stated also that the draft changes then before them were
"a starting point" that they "want[ed] to work
on" because "[t]his thing's going to come in.
They're going to come in and we're going to be caught
with our pants down if we don't move. That's why I
want to make sure that we're moving
ahead."[70] At the time of this meeting, and when
the changes discussed were enacted into law, there were no
schools in the Village.[71] The only prospective school use was
the YSV plan.
c.
Local Law No. 1 of 2001
On
January 22, 2001, the board of trustees adopted Local Law No.
1 of 2001 (the "2001 Law").[72] It defined
"educational institutions" as kindergartens,
primary, and secondary schools that were operated and
licensed under New York law.[73] It required also that schools
obtain special permits from the board of trustees. In
addition, it changed the minimum lot size from 10 gross acres
to 10 net acres plus an additional .05 net acres per
student.[74]
d.
June 2001 Planning Board Meeting
In June
2001, YSV returned to the planning board with another
informal presentation. This time, YSV described an additional
proposed structure - an educational center for
adults.[75] The Village attorney questioned whether
the educational center would qualify as an "educational
institution" under the new 2001 Law.[76] The planning
board and the YSV representative discussed also issues
related to wetlands, slopes, and road access.[77] The YSV
representative stated that YSV would address these issues
with the Village before submitting a formal
application.[78]
e.
The YSV Subdivision
Under
Pomona's subdivision regulations, subdivision of a parcel
into two or more lots requires the planning board's
approval before the applicant seeks approval for a specific
development plan on a subdivided lot.[79] While its
informal approach concerning its yeshiva project was
underway, YSV made a separate presentation during an August
2001 hearing concerning a proposed subdivision of the 100
acre property into 26 lots - 25 for single-family homes, and
one large lot, not a topic of the August 2001 hearing, for
the yeshiva.[80]
A
number of Pomona residents attended the planning board
hearing and commented on the YSV proposal. Two expressed
anxiety over the Village's ability to control the large
lot. One asked whether that lot later could be annexed
"to any of the other religious areas in the county"
and thus prevent the Village from exercising regulatory
control over the property.[81] The other asked whether Pomona
had laws stricter than those of the Town of Ramapo that would
allow the Village to determine whether and how the Camp Dora
property could be developed, or whether there were no such
laws and that the school essentially was "a done
deal."[82]
2.
TRC Buys the Property and the Village Adopts Local Law
No. 5 of 2004
On
August 31, 2004, YSV sold the property to TRC for
approximately $13 million.[83] The parties stipulated below
that the Village government did not become aware of this
transaction until November 2004.[84] In the interim, however,
the board of trustees considered another amendment to the
zoning ordinance.
On
September 7, 2004, Village Attorney Doris Ulman made the
following recommendations to the board of trustees: (1)
changing the definition of "educational
institution" to allow dormitories as a permitted
accessory use, (2) eliminating the requirement of a specific
acreage per student, (3) removing restrictions related to the
location of schools on certain roads, and (4) limiting
dormitories to one such building per lot.[85] The first
recommendation would have brought Pomona into compliance with
state law - specifically, Bagnardi - requiring that
municipal zoning codes allow dormitories as an educational
use of property.[86]
On
September 27, 2004, the board adopted these recommendations
by enactment of Local Law No. 5 of 2004 (the "2004
Law").[87] Bound as we are by the parties'
stipulation, we, like the court below, necessarily accept
that it did so in ignorance of TRC's purchase of the
property.
The
2004 Law liberalized certain provisions of Village law
related to educational institutions - including provisions of
the 2001 Law. It expanded the definition of "educational
institution" to include college, graduate, and
postgraduate schools in addition to kindergarten, primary,
and secondary schools.[88] It recognized also accreditation of
schools "by the New York State Education Department or
[a] similar recognized accrediting
agency."[89] Additionally, the 2004 Law defined a
"dormitory" as:
"A building that is operated by a school located on the
same lot and which contains private or semi-private rooms
which open to a common hallway, which rooms are sleeping
quarters for administrative staff, faculty[, ] or students.
Communal dining, cooking, laundry, lounge[, ] and recreation
facilities may be provided. Dormitory rooms shall not contain
separate cooking, dining[, ] or housekeeping facilities
except that one dwelling unit with complete housekeeping
facilities may be provided for use of a Superintendent or
supervisory staff for every fifty dormitory rooms. Not more
than one communal dining room shall be provided in any
building used for dormitory purposes. Single family,
two-family[, ] and/or multi-family dwelling units other than
as described above shall not be considered to be dormitories
or part of dormitories."[90]
According
to Ulman, who drafted the law, this definition was based on
laws in Chestnut Ridge and Ramapo.[91]
Significantly,
none of the changes effected by the 2004 Law would have had
any effect on the plans of YSV which, as far as the Board of
Trustees knew, still owned the property.
3.
The Village's Opposition to the Town of Ramapo's
Zoning Changes
Until
now, we have focused on events relating to the old Camp Dora
that culminated with TRC's acquisition of the property
and the Village's amendments to its zoning law. But there
were related events going on during part of the same time
period that involved the Town of Ramapo's zoning
ordinance. As these events bore also on the district
court's findings, we turn to them now.
Between
2002 and 2004, the Town of Ramapo, which governs areas
adjacent to Pomona, considered and passed a number of laws
regulating or relevant to land use.
In
September 2002, Ramapo came out with a draft comprehensive
plan for development. The draft plan proposed, among other
things, to "down zone" a 200-acre property called
the Patrick Farm Property from 2-acre residential zoning, or
RR-80, to R-40 that would allow for "Planned Residential
Development."[92] The Patrick Farm Property is located on
the southwest corner of Routes 202 and 306 - across the road
from the TRC property.
Rumors
circulated that 1, 500 to 2, 000 units of multi-family
housing would be built on the Patrick Farm Property. To calm
the rumors, the town supervisor, [93] Christopher St. Lawrence,
issued a statement to clarify that the draft plan would allow
only 220 residential units to be built there.[94] But some of
the neighboring villages, including Pomona, were not
reassured and sought to create a new village where the
Patrick Farm Property was located in order to remove it from
Ramapo's jurisdiction and thus prevent the proposed down
zoning.[95] Mayor Marshall was a proponent of this
idea and vocal opponent of the draft comprehensive
plan.[96] He emphasized that "[z]ero
population growth should be a major [objective of
Ramapo's comprehensive plan]."[97]
Notwithstanding such opposition, the comprehensive plan was
adopted on January 28, 2004.[98] The new village supported by
Marshall did not come to pass.
In May
2004, the Village of Pomona and five other villages sued
Ramapo to set aside its comprehensive plan.[99] Their
petition stated that:
"Beginning in the 1990[s], the Town has attracted a
burgeoning Hassidic community, which has for the most part
settled around the central hub in Monsey and areas to the
east of Monsey.
"This has caused development and political pressures in
the Town to increase its housing stock and infrastructure.
"The essence of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning
proposals is to significantly increase the housing densities
and infrastructure along the bordering areas of the Town to
accommodate the existing and future population increases in
this area.
"It is not a rational development plan, and certainly
did not take into consideration the impacts such development
would have on the infrastructure and character of the
Town's bordering Villages."[100]
The
action sought to set aside the plan on the ground that it had
been adopted in violation of SEQRA.
Shortly
after the petition was filed, Ramapo adopted Local Law No.
9-2004, which "permits married adult student
multi-family high density housing in most single-family
residential zones throughout the unincorporated portion of
the Town of Ramapo" if that housing is an accessory use
to a postsecondary educational institution.[101] Pomona
and other villages again sued Ramapo on the grounds, among
others, that the law violated SEQRA and the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment.[102] And Mayor Marshall
separately criticized the Ramapo town board for
"pandering to the special interest groups able to
deliver the critically important block vote [that] has become
so essential to those seeking office in
Ramapo."[103]
4.
TRC's Plans to Build a Rabbinical College
TRC was
formed in August 2004 as a religious
corporation.[104] Its stated purpose was, among other
things, to "establish, maintain[, ] and conduct a school
for the [study] of the holy Torah and to maintain classes for
the teachings of the customs, traditions[, ] and mode of
worship of the Jewish Orthodox faith."[105] It
intended to build and operate a rabbinical college in
Rockland County to train a new generation of rabbinical
judges[106] on the property it purchased from YSV
in August 2004.[107]
According
to Tartikov, TRC would be organized as a Torah community,
[108] a community designed to isolate
students from distractions and surround them only with others
engaged in the same study.[109] Students would follow its
planned program of study for approximately fifteen years
before becoming rabbinical judges.[110] They would study from
6 a.m. until 10 p.m[111] and live on campus with their
spouses and children.[112] On-campus housing would allow them
to meet their religious obligations to their
families.[113] Due to the nature of its program, TRC
could not be accredited by the New York State Education
Department or the Association for Advanced Rabbinical and
Talmudic Schools, the only accrediting agencies relevant to
TRC's program of study.[114]
There
is evidence that Pomona's board of trustees learned a bit
about TRC's plans as early as November 2004, when it
became aware that TRC had purchased the property. Most
obviously, TRC's name, which includes the phrase
"Rabbinical College," is not subtle about the
purpose of TRC. Further, from November 2004 until January
2007, the Village approved TRC's tax-exempt status twice,
[115] and the board of trustees discussed or
planned to discuss TRC in nonpublic meetings on ten separate
occasions.[116] There is evidence also that there were
"unsubstantiated rumors"[117] that TRC planned to
build a rabbinical college on the property.[118]
These
facts notwithstanding, there is no evidence that the board
knew any details about the planned rabbinical college before
January 2007. In particular, nothing in the record suggests
that the board knew about the nature, length, or size of the
contemplated rabbinical college program, its anticipated on
campus housing, the number of people who would reside on the
site, or the duration of the planned course of study.
5.
Ulman Drafts the 2007 Laws
It was
in this context that Ulman in late 2006 drafted what would
become Local Law No. 1 of 2007 (the "2007 Dormitory
Law") and Local Law No. 5 of 2007 (the "2007
Wetlands Law") - the third and fourth challenged
laws.[119]
The
draft 2007 Dormitory Law would have (1) changed the acreage
requirement for educational institutions to a net of 10 acres
without the prior requirement of .05 additional net acres per
student, (2) removed certain slopes from the net lot area
calculation, (3) prohibited dormitories from occupying more
than 20 percent of the total square footage of all the
buildings on a lot, and (4) set the maximum height of a
dormitory at 25 feet.[120]
Among
other things, the draft 2007 Wetlands Law would have
prohibited "[e]recting any building or structure of any
kind," including roads and driveways, within 100 feet of
the boundary of any wetland without a permit issued by the
board of trustees or planning board.[121] A person
could apply for a permit only if the prohibitions in the law
resulted in the "deprivation of [all] the reasonable use
of a property so as to constitute a de facto taking of such
property."[122] The 100-foot buffer, however, would
not apply to "lots that are improved with single family
residences."[123] The permit and permit-approval
procedures prescribed by the 2007 Wetlands Law are different
from the special permit requirement and permit process for
educational uses under the 2001 Law.
6.
December 18, 2006 Public Hearing re 2007 Laws
The
board of trustees held a public hearing on what became the
2007 Dormitory Law on December 18, 2006. Paul Savad, the
attorney for TRC, asked if the proposed law was being
considered due to his client's intended use of its
property and what the law would accomplish for the
Village.[124] Marshall responded that the intent was
to "refine the existing law."[125] To give
interested parties more time to review the proposed law, the
board continued the hearing to the next board meeting on
January 22, 2007.[126] It set the extension hearing on the
draft 2007 Wetlands Law for the same date.[127] Before
concluding matters on December 18, however, the board held a
closed executive session to discuss "matters of
litigation."[128] There is no record of the board's
discussion during that session, though the agenda for the
meeting indicates that the board planned to discuss the TRC
property.[129]
7.
Details of TRC's Plans Emerge
On
January 9, 2007, a political action group called Preserve
Ramapo published an article detailing plans for the TRC
construction.[130] Michael Castellucio circulated the
article to a Preserve Ramapo email list along with the
following message:
"This is not our usual update letter. We have posted an
important story that you will not find in other media
including the Journal or Channel 12. Plans are under way to
build a 'religious college' in Pomona at the end of
Route 306 where it meets Route 202. On the 100 acres on the
right side of the road a developer plans to put up an
apartment complex of 4 to 6-story buildings that will house
4, 500 adult students and their families. This campus will
have 9 large apartment buildings and a single, much smaller
3-story building that is the sole school building. The
formula used is the 90% apartments 10% school of [Town of
Ramapo Supervisor Christopher] St. Lawrence's Adult
Student Housing Law. . . .
"Please forward this email, or send a link to the story
to your neighbors and friends. Residents need to know that
the Adult Student Housing complex on the old Nike site
(Grandview Ave) was just the beginning of a massive
urbanization effort whose path was cleared by Supervisor St.
Lawrence and his Board."[131]
The
article itself stated that TRC planned to build housing for
1, 000 students - together with their families totaling 4,
500 residents.[132] The plan involved parking for 34
vehicles at the school building and 1, 036 vehicles at the
residence buildings.[133] The article provided also the
following background on the adult-student-housing law:
"in [the Town of] Ramapo[, the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)] . . . was used by our
town board as the legal justification for its new Adult
Student Housing Law (ASH). Michael Klein, our town attorney,
informed the town board that under RLUIPA it could not
prevent religious institutions from creating 'Adult
Student Housing' connected to schools providing
'post-secondary education.'
"Rather than test the fairness and constitutionality of
the RLUIPA law in court, Supervisor St. Lawrence and his
Board created a number of ASH zones in Ramapo including the
project on Grandview Ave. on the old Nike site and numerous
others. . . .
"By doing so, St. Lawrence and the Board have opened the
floodgates to urbanization with high-density, multi-story
apartment complexes masquerading as school campuses.
"The only way out of this march over the cliff is for
voters to clean house this fall in the Ramapo elections, just
as they did last fall in the state and national
elections."[134]
On
January 12, 2007, The Journal News, a local
newspaper, published an article entitled "Pomona to get
rabbinical college plan."[135] It included an
overview of the scale of the project similar to the Preserve
Ramapo article. In addition, it quoted Savad as saying that
the project was not a "dormitory city" but a
rabbinical college "for Orthodox Jews who desperately
needed and are mandated by Jewish law to go to the Jewish
courts."[136]
8.
January 22, 2007 Public Hearing on the 2007 Dormitory
Law
On
January 22, 2007, the board continued the public hearing on
the draft 2007 Dormitory Law. Villagers voiced their
opposition to the size and scale of the rabbinical college as
had been reported by Preserve Ramapo and The Journal
News despite repeated statements from Marshall that
the exclusive purpose of the hearing was to discuss changes
to the law generally rather than to discuss any specific
property or project.[137] Nevertheless, some villagers noted
that an additional 4, 500 people added to the Village's
population of 3, 200 residents would "entirely change
the character" and "the politics of the
[V]illage."[138] A volunteer firefighter noted that
there was no equipment to "handle six story
buildings."[139] One individual mentioned the pressure
that the college would put on town
infrastructure.[140] A number stressed that the rural
character of the community was a feature of Pomona they
wished to preserve.[141] And another described the adult
student housing in Ramapo on Grandview Avenue as a
"monstrosity."[142]
Some
villagers voiced their opposition to the people who
potentially would reside on the property. One said that
"there is a group who wants to take over this
village" and that he did not want to be
"responsible for paying the expenses of somebody
else's lifestyle, whether you cloak it in religion, you
cloak it in anything you want to say, it just seems unfair
that the burden should be placed on the people who have lived
in the village by other people who want to come in and change
the whole nature of the village."[143]
Another
stated that "it's really funny how we're talking
about law, when you have a group that breaks every law there
is."[144]
Two
potential changes to the draft 2007 Dormitory Law -
permission to construct dormitories with two communal dining
rooms and a height limit of 35 rather than 25 feet on
dormitories - were discussed also. The change from 25 to 35
feet would have brought the height limit in line with the
limit on all other buildings in the Village. One villager
noted, however, that many single-family homes and other
buildings in the Village had pitched, rather than flat roofs,
as one would expect a dormitory to have.[145] Applying
a different height limit to dormitories therefore would
produce little or no inconsistency in the law.[146] Another
suggested that the 35-foot limit should be measured from the
existing rather than the proposed grade of a
property.[147]
At a
certain point in the meeting, an individual stated that
"it would be nice to hear [the board] saying, hey, I
know how you all feel."[148] He continued to state that
"in America, we have the sense of community. That's
our face. We're going to be another Kiryas
Joel.[149] That's why we are
emotional."[150] The next three individuals to speak
all commented on the emotion and frustration that villagers
felt as a result of the reports detailing TRC's plans.
Specifically, one individual said:
"The frustration that we have is that you knew of the
press that had come out, whether it be true or not. You knew
that it was out there, and you know we were very, very upset.
I think what would have helped us is if at the beginning of
this meeting, you had said, this is what is going on, we know
that you've read this, we are here to protect your
interests, and the amendments to this law, this project, this
alleged project, with the alleged attorney who is allegedly
sitting here, produces it, that these amendments will defend
us. If you had said that in the beginning, I don't think
as many people would be as upset as they are, because we
don't know where you stand."[151]
Mayor
Marshall replied:
"We sitting at this table have limitations that are
placed on us as to what we can say, and what we can't
say, because our attorney tells us what we can say and what
we can't say. I can't say what I feel - I can't -
if I agree with you, I don't agree with you, I don't
have that luxury of being able to say that here. All that I
can say is that every member of this board works very, very
hard to do what is best for this community. You have your
issues. Don't assume because no one has gotten up and
said, wow, I agree with you, oh boy; don't assume that
because we didn't do that that we don't agree. We may
or we may not, but please give us the benefit of the doubt.
We have all been doing this - we work very hard at what we
do. We try and do what is best for the community, but
it's our home.
"There are limitations under the law that restrict what
we can say and when we can say it."[152]
Following
the public hearing, the board briefly discussed the proposed
changes to the draft law. Trustee Lamer agreed with the point
that dormitories were more likely to have flat roofs and a
25-foot limit expressed the view therefore would be
appropriate.[153] Trustee Banks said he thought that the
limit should be consistent with the limit on accessory uses,
which was then 20 feet.[154] Deputy Mayor Sanderson
concluded that the limit should be kept at 25 feet as in the
draft law proposed on December 18, 2006.[155] He stated
also that the board should keep the provision in the December
18 draft that provided for one, not two, dining
rooms.[156] The board then adopted the 2007
Dormitory Law in the form originally prepared by Ulman in
2006.[157]
9.
January 22, 2007 Public Hearing on the Wetlands Law
Following
a discussion of two items not subject to public hearing nor
transcribed, the board held a public hearing on the proposed
2007 Wetlands Law on January 22.[158] Savad objected to the
law generally and on grounds specific to the TRC property. He
stated that the proposition that the proposed wetlands law
was designed to "fill a void created by federal law is
incorrect and false . . . because the vast majority of
wetlands are under the present, current jurisdiction of the
Army Corps of Engineers and the [New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, or] DEC."[159] Savad
argued that the proposed law generally would be
"arbitrary and capricious," "subjective,
"[160] "insidious," and "not
constitutional," at least insofar as it would add an
additional 10 acres of the property to the 37 acres already
subject to DEC and federal wetlands jurisdiction, thus
targeting and preventing certain uses.[161]
A
villager who spoke immediately afterward argued that the
draft 2007 Wetlands Law indeed was needed to fill gaps in
federal and state wetlands regulations and provided an
example of a developer who had damaged wetlands on a property
adjacent to Pomona. The developer had gone unpunished and the
damage unmitigated due to the limited jurisdiction, failings,
and resource constraints of the federal and state
authorities.[162] Another villager expressed concern
that his property would be affected negatively by the
proposed law, which he believed was "made specifically
for, let's just say, certain types of institutions which
I think is the reason for most of this."[163] He
suggested that large parcels should be treated differently
than single-family homes.[164]
10.
February 12, 2007 Workshop Meeting
The
public hearing on the draft 2007 Wetlands Law was continued
to February 26, 2007.[165] On February 12, 2007, however, the
board held a workshop to discuss possible changes to the
draft law. Each member of the board (with the possible
exception of Roman) had known for at least six years that
there were wetlands on the TRC property.[166]
At the
workshop, Ulman ran through a list of recommendations from
the county.[167] Subsequently, the board discussed the
issue of what would happen under the proposed law if a
property owner wanted to extend an existing deck that was
within the buffer zone. Ulman noted that the building
inspector in that event would need to go to the property to
determine if there were any wetlands that would trigger the
permit procedure in the law. Sanderson explained to Ulman
that the process would not work that way:
"[The building inspector] doesn't have the time or
the money, budget wise, to go out and look at the site for
somebody that wants to rebuild their deck with three extra
square feet in it. . . .
"He has to get a building permit to do it and the guy
will look at the site plan or the existing - the existing
file and he'll say, have you got a proper - does the deck
meet all of our codes? Yes. You got a building
permit."[168]
Banks
explained that the issue was a "problem of identifying
and mapping the existing wetlands or small wetlands all over
the village."[169]
Marshall
noted that the law accomplished such mapping only for new
developments.[170] After further back and forth, the
board decided that it would address at the next public
hearing the issue of whether to apply the law to "new
additions and structures on existing developed
property."[171]
11.
Village Elections
The
public hearing scheduled for February 26, 2007 was adjourned
until March 26, 2007.[172] But on March 20, the Village held
elections for the board of trustees. Nick Sanderson, Brett
Yagel, and Rita Louie ran as a slate.[173] They
campaigned on a promise to stand up to the threat posed by
TRC's "huge development that will include housing
for thousands of adult students and their families" that
would "have real environmental and safety
problems."[174] They promised to fight TRC's
anticipated use of RLUIPA. They called RLUIPA
"fundamentally unfair" and its deployment "a
hammer against our village."[175] And they won:
Sanderson became mayor, and Yagel and Louie each became a
trustee.[176]At the time they took up consideration
of the draft 2007 Wetlands Law, at least
Sanderson[177] and Yagel[178] were aware of the
presence of some wetlands on the TRC property.
12.
The Village Adopts the 2007 Wetlands Law
The
Village adopted the 2007 Wetlands Law on April 23,
2007.[179] It exempted existing single-family
homes.[180]
III.
Procedural History
TRC
never applied for a permit to build a rabbinical college on
its property. But Tartikov filed this action on July 10,
2007[181] challenging the four Pomona laws
described above. It argued that the laws, facially and as
applied, violated (1) the First and Fourteenth Amendments and
their New York constitutional counterparts, (2) the
substantial burden, nondiscrimination, equal terms, and
exclusions and limits provisions of RLUIPA, (3) the Fair
Housing Act ("FHA"), and (4) New York statutory and
common law.[182]
Pomona
moved to dismiss on the grounds that Tartikov lacked
standing, its claims were not ripe, and it failed to state a
claim for relief.[183] The district court granted the motion
with respect to the as-applied challenges, concluding that
they were not ripe because TRC had not presented formally its
actual plans for the proposed rabbinical college nor made any
application for a special use permit, use variance, zoning
amendment, or zone change.[184] The court concluded also
that Tartikov's claims under New York Civil Rights Law
Section 40 were unripe.[185] It denied the motion in all
other respects relevant here.[186]
Tartikov
moved, and Pomona cross-moved, for summary judgment. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of Pomona
dismissing the free speech claims.[187] It otherwise denied
the motions in all relevant respects.
After a
ten-day bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of
Tartikov on the majority of its claims.[188] Beginning
with the Fourteenth Amendment claims, the court found that
the Village enacted each of the four challenged laws with a
discriminatory purpose against Tartikov based on its
religious character and a desire to prevent the growth of a
Hasidic community in Pomona.[189] Among other evidence, the
court focused on the timing of the laws, the Village's
litigation opposing the Town of Ramapo's comprehensive
plan, the comments of villagers and board members during the
2007 hearings, and several statements from Village officials
it regarded as indicating their prejudice against
Tartikov.[190] The court found also that the zoning
law amendments had a discriminatory effect because they
prevented Tartikov from constructing the proposed rabbinical
college.[191] Thus determining that the laws were
subject to strict scrutiny, the court held that the Village
lacked a compelling state interest in enacting them and, in
any case, the laws were not narrowly tailored to serve any
such interests.[192] Based on these findings, the court
held also that the Village enacted the laws to discriminate
against Tartikov's sincerely held religious beliefs and
its associational rights.[193]
Treating
the RLUIPA nondiscrimination claims as overlapping with the
equal protection claims, the court found for Tartikov on
these claims, as well.[194] It found for Tartikov also on the
claims under RLUIPA that the zoning law amendments
substantially burdened Tartikov's religious exercise. The
court held that Tartikov demonstrated that its desire to
build college facilities and multi-family housing was
motivated by its religious character, and that the zoning law
amendments would burden its planned construction
substantially.[195] However, the court found for Pomona on
the RLUIPA exclusions and limits and equal terms claims. For
the former, it found that while the amendments would exclude
Tartikov's proposed religious use of its land, they would
not, as an exclusions and limits claim requires, totally
exclude or unreasonably limit all religious
assemblies, institutions, or structures within the
Village.[196] As to the equal terms claims, the
court found that the zoning law amendments did not, as they
must for the claim to succeed, treat religious institutions
differently than nonreligious institutions.[197]
The
court held further that Pomona violated the FHA's
prohibition against discriminatory housing policies and New
York's constitutional right to freedom of worship largely
in the same respects that it violated the U.S. Constitution
and RLUIPA.[198] The court found for Pomona, however,
on the New York common law claims that the Village improperly
had excluded multifamily housing.[199]
The
district court entered judgment and a mandatory injunction on
March 1, 2018. Among other things, the court: (1) declared
the four laws facially invalid under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments, (2) enjoined Pomona from applying any of the
provisions in those laws to the TRC property, (3) ordered
Pomona to "process any and all applications" filed
by Tartikov without reference to the provisions in the four
laws and without "undue delay or religious
discrimination," (4) directed Pomona to consider any
proposed Tartikov nonaccredited rabbinical college as a
permitted use rather than one subject to any special permit
requirement, and any proposed Tartikov rabbinical college
with student-family-housing as a permitted use in the R-40
zoning district (one acre, single-family residential), and
(5) prohibited Pomona from enacting in the future any
provisions similar to those in the four challenged
laws.[200]
Pomona
appealed. Tartikov cross-appealed, asserting that the
district court erred in dismissing the as-applied challenges
and in ruling for Pomona on the RLUIPA equal terms and
exclusions claims.
DISCUSSION
I.
Standing
A
federal court's authority to adjudicate depends on
whether the plaintiff has standing to pursue its
claims.[201] The Supreme Court has construed
Article III to mean that a plaintiff must "have (1)
suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to
the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is
likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision."[202] An injury in fact sufficient to confer
standing is "an invasion of a legally protected
interest" that is "concrete and
particularized" and "actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical."[203] "[A] plaintiff
must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press
and for each form of relief that is
sought."[204] Where an action involves multiple
plaintiffs, Article III is satisfied so long as at least one
plaintiff - and not necessarily the same one - has standing
with respect to each claim.[205]
Tartikov's
claims fall into two distinct groups, each of which asserts a
different alleged injury.
Tartikov's
equal protection claims under the federal and New York
constitutions and its nondiscrimination and equal terms
claims under RLUIPA all are based on the alleged invasion of
Tartikov's right to be free from state discrimination or
unequal treatment under the law on the basis of religion. Its
First Amendment free exercise, free speech, and free
association claims under the federal and New York
constitutions, RLUIPA substantial burden and exclusion and
limits claims, FHA claims, and common law claims related to
the Berenson doctrine[206] all rest on alleged
infringement of the free exercise of its religion by
regulation of the use of its property. Whether Tartikov has
standing to pursue each group of claims turns on whether the
alleged injury is an injury in fact for Article III
purposes.[207]
The
first group of claims is that the Village adopted the four
challenged laws at least in part for the purpose of
discriminating against Tartikov on the basis of religion and
that those laws stigmatized the plaintiffs.
"[S]tigmatizing members of [a] disfavored group as
innately inferior and therefore as less worthy participants
in the political community" - i.e.,
discrimination - is an actual and concrete injury sufficient
to confer standing.[208] The "'right invoked is
that of equal treatment,' [and] the appropriate remedy is
a mandate of equal treatment."[209] Tartikov
thus has standing to pursue equal protection claims under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the federal and New York
constitutions as well as nondiscrimination and equal terms
claims under RLUIPA.
But
Tartikov's second group of claims is different. It
alleges that the four challenged laws prevent it from
building and operating a rabbinical college on the property
and thus interfere with its religious freedom. Tartikov,
however, never submitted a formal proposal for the building
project, applied for a permit, or engaged in any other
conduct that would implicate or invoke the operation of the
challenged zoning laws. Whatever harm may arise from the
application of the zoning laws to TRC's property is
merely conjectural at this time. "[C]onjectural"
injuries do not suffice under Article III.[210] We
therefore lack jurisdiction over Tartikov's free
exercise, free speech, and free association claims under the
federal and New York constitutions, RLUIPA substantial burden
and exclusion and limits claims, FHA claims, and common law
claims related to the Berenson doctrine. We vacate
the judgment with respect to these claims and remand with
instructions for the district court to dismiss them.
We now
turn to the remaining claims.
II.
Equal Protection Claims[211]
"This
Court has generally recognized three types of equal
protection violations: (1) a facially discriminatory law; (2)
a facially neutral statute that was adopted with a
discriminatory intent and applied with a discriminatory
effect . . .; and (3) a facially neutral law that is enforced
in a discriminatory manner."[212] With respect to each
of the challenged laws, Tartikov focused, and the district
court based its holding, on the second theory.[213]
Discriminatory
purpose "implies that the decisionmaker . . . selected
or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part
'because of,' not merely 'in spite of,' its
adverse effects upon an identifiable
group."[214] "Determining whether invidious
discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor demands a
sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct
evidence of intent as may be available."[215]This
evidence may include "the series of events leading up to
a land use decision, the context in which the decision was
made, whether the decision or decisionmaking process departed
from established norms, statements made by the decisionmaking
body and community members, reports issued by the
decisionmaking body, whether a discriminatory impact was
foreseeable, and whether less discriminatory avenues were
available."[216]
"In
reviewing a district court's decision in a bench trial,
we review [its] findings of fact for clear error[, ] . . .
its conclusions of law de novo," and mixed
questions of law and fact de novo.[217] Of
particular relevance here, "[w]e review a district
court's finding of discrimination after a bench trial for
clear error."[218]"[T]here is a strong presumption
in favor of a trial court's findings of fact if supported
by substantial evidence," and "[w]e will not upset
a factual finding unless we are left with the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed."[219] That said, "we have not hesitated
to find clear error 'where the court has failed to
synthesize the evidence in a manner that accounts for
conflicting evidence or the gaps in a party's evidentiary
presentation.'"[220]
We
consider the challenged laws in turn.
A.
Local Law No. 1 of 2001
The
district court found that the 2001 Law was motivated at least
in part by discriminatory animus based on: (1) the timing of
the law in relation to YSV's informal proposal to build a
yeshiva on the property and the fact that there were no
schools in the Village at that time, (2) a comment made by
FPC in a memorandum (that specifically referenced YSV)
stating that the zoning laws regarding schools were
"scant" and FPC's comment at a planning board
meeting that those laws "really stink," (3) a
comment by Mayor Marshall during the same meeting that the
Village would be "caught with [its] pants down,"
and (4) the Village's supposed reaction to earlier
proposed projects - specifically, its opposition to the
expansion of an Orthodox Hasidic yeshiva, Bais Yaakov, in
Ramapo in 1996 and its support for an assisted-living
facility. Reviewing as we must for clear error, these facts -
whether individually or taken together - are insufficient to
support an inference that the 2001 Law was enacted to
discriminate against YSV in particular or Hasidic Jews in
general.
We
agree with the district court that the timing of the 2001 Law
was "in direct response to YSV's desire to build an
Orthodox yeshiva on the Subject Property."[221] But the
Village's choice to act in response to YSV's informal
proposal says nothing of whether that choice was motivated by
a positive, negative, or neutral reaction to YSV, its
religious character, or its project.
YSV
first approached the Village in 1999, through the informal
presentation described above, about building a yeshiva on the
property. During the meeting, its representative noted, in
response to questions from Village representatives, that YSV
had conducted a traffic study, did not plan to build any
dormitories, and had no further development plans in mind.
Mark Healey, the FPC representative present at the meeting,
then made the following comment:
"I took a look at the zoning for schools in the Village
and they really stink, to put it straight. The[] only
requirement is that they have to have five acres of land and
the setbacks have to be twice what is ordinarily required. So
that leaves an open question of issues that several members
of the Board brought up. What can happen in the
future?"[222]
He went
on to recommend that the Village "seriously consider
looking at it[s] requirements for schools and address such
issues as perhaps, more detailed or more tailored lot area
requirements."[223] He stated also that the Village
could craft requirements that "wouldn't
restrict [YSV] from doing what they want to
do but . . .would assure the Village that they're
not going to go down the road and develop a lot more in the
future."[224]
The
district court relied on the two comments from Healey in
finding discriminatory animus. But these comments demonstrate
an acceptance of YSV and its proposal rather than
any religious animus. The only negative implication, if there
was any, concerned the possibility of more intensive
development in the future, regardless of its nature or the
identity of any future developer.
Of
course, it theoretically is possible that Healy made these
comments to cover up discriminatory intent and that the board
so understood them. If that were so, the board's
receptiveness and responsiveness to Healey's statements
would render the 2001 Law a violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Moreover, if discriminatory intent lurks within
the background of a facially neutral decision, courts are
obliged to smoke it out.[225] But there is no evidence on
this record that Healey harbored any relevant animus or
intended the recommendations to serve as cover for
discriminatory goals. Nor is there evidence that the board
understood his comments to promote a forbidden end. Without
evidence of discriminatory intent, we must look to the
effects of the changes that FPC recommended to the Village to
determine how, if at all, they would have affected a formal
YSV proposal, which was the impetus for the board's
actions in this time period.
In its
January 24, 2000 memorandum addressed to the Village board of
trustees, FPC recommended: (1) adding preschools to the list
of authorized uses, (2) subjecting schools to special permit
approval, and (3) revising minimum lot size requirements. The
Village declined to adopt the first recommendation, as is
evident from the definition of "school" and
"educational institution" in the 2001 Law. It
incorporated the second and third.
The
record is devoid of evidence that could support an inference
of discriminatory intent in the Village's decision not to
move forward with the first recommendation. Nothing in record
suggests the Village had an invidious purpose behind
continuing to exclude preschools from the list of authorized
uses.[226] Nor would the recommendation have had
a discriminatory effect given that its definition of
"educational institution" applied to all schools
equally. While YSV was the only school at the time that owned
property and intended to build in Pomona, the 2001 Law would
not have prevented YSV from applying for a special permit,
nor would it have excluded YSV from the Village. In fact, YSV
itself indicated that its proposed preschool was a smaller,
subsidiary aspect of the project rather than its
focus.[227]
The
second and third recommendations require more analysis. To
begin, neither recommendation facially evidences
discriminatory intent. In Bagnardi, the New York
Court of Appeals described the requirement of a special
permit application as "beneficial in that it affords
zoning boards an opportunity to weigh the proposed use in
relation to neighboring land uses and to cushion any adverse
effects by the imposition of conditions designed to mitigate
them."[228] An apt example is a minimum lot size
requirement, which can control "the effect the use would
have on . . . the general plan for development of the
community."[229] The two amendments under discussion
thus were addressed to legitimate planning concerns. And that
is exactly what the evidence suggests the Village sought to
do here. Indeed, the FPC memorandum ...