Tabernacle of Victory Pentecostal Church (“Petitioner”) is the owner of a certain property on the Hempstead Turnpike in Franklin Square, New York. The property is split zoned, with the front situated in a “Business District” and the rear situated in a “Residence C District.” Due to a lack of on-site parking, Petitioner filed an application with the Board of Appeals of the Town of Hempstead (the “Board”) for a special exception permit so that religious services could be held on the property. Petitioner also sought an area variance for a waiver of the Town’s off-street parking requirement. As a condition to the grant of the application, Petitioner proposed that a maximum of 105 people would be allowed to enter the sanctuary, and that two church vans would transport half of Petitioner’s members – approximately 60 people – to the site. The result would be a need for off-site parking for, at most, 8 to 10 vehicles during the Church’s peak hours of operation. After several public hearings, the Board denied Petitioner’s application in its entirety. Consequently, Petitioner brought suit in the New York Supreme Court seeking annulment of the Board’s determinations. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceedings, and the following appeal ensued.
The Appellate Division began by noting that “[u]nlike a variance which gives permission to an owner to use property in a manner inconsistent with a local zoning ordinance, a special exception gives permission to use property in a way that is consistent with the zoning ordinance, although not necessarily allowed as of right.” Matter of Retail Prop. Trust v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Town of Hempstead, 98 N.Y.2d 190, 195 (2002). The “inclusion of the permitted use in the ordinance is tantamount to a legislative finding that the permitted use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect that neighborhood,” Id. at 195 (quoting N. Shore Steak House v. Thomaston, 30 N.Y.2d 238 (1972). In connection with its application for a special exception permit, Petitioner properly sought an area variance to waive the off-street parking requirement, which may be granted in connection with the permit. In addition, Petitioner suggested conditions for the limitation of its use in order to mitigate the impact on the surrounding community. “[W]hile religious institutions are not exempt from local zoning laws, greater flexibility is required in evaluating an application for a religious use than an application for another use and every effort to accommodate the religious use must be made.” Matter of Genesis Assembly of God v. Davies, 208 A.D.2d 627 (1994). A local zoning board is required to “suggest measures to accommodate the proposed religious use while mitigating the adverse effects on the surrounding community to the greatest extent possible.” Id. at 628.
Instead, Hempstead’s Board suggested no measures that would have accommodated the proposed religious use while mitigating the adverse effects on the surrounding community. See Matter of St. Thomas Malankara Orthodox Church, Inc. Long Is. v. Town of Hempstead, 23 A.D.3d 666, 667 (2005); Matter of Harrison Orthodox Minyan v. Town Bd. of Harrison, 159 A.D.2d 572, 573 (1990). Rather, despite the conditions proposed by Petitioner, the Board denied Petitioner’s application in its entirely, even though the proposed religious use could have been substantially accommodated. See Capriola v. Wright, 73 A.D.2d 1043 (2010). Further, the evidence was insufficient to rebut the presumed beneficial effect of the proposed religious use. See Pine Knolls Alliance Church v. Town of Moreau, 804 N.Y.S.2d 708 (2005).
Accordingly, the Appellate Division granted the petition, and annulled the Board’s determination. The matter was remitted to the Board with direction to grant Petitioner’s application for a special exception permit and area variance under such reasonable conditions as would allow the proposed religious use while mitigating any detrimental or adverse effects upon the surrounding community.
In 2015, Hope Rising Community Church experienced extreme opposition, the kind that would force it to close its doors and leave behind the families and youth it was so passionate about reaching. As the lead pastor I felt helpless, inferior and as if I had no […]
Read MoreDalton & Tomich’s assistance in our RLUIPA matter has paved the way for our church to continue serving the community and for new churches in the area to thrive in the future. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your stand for religious […]
Read MoreThe Urban Church will be forever grateful to Dalton & Tomich plc for navigating it through a difficult land use issue. Let them give you honest and caring advice because that’s exactly what they’ll do.
Read MoreDalton & Tomich, PLC defended a complicated case at a church we insure. Not only is the firm professional, they understand how church business runs and work well within church leadership.
Read MoreDalton & Tomich, PLC helped us immensely in the areas of litigation and negotiation! Their professionalism and understanding of church policy helped our church be victorious in a modern day religious land use battle. RLUIPA Religious Land Use Case: Lighthouse Community Church of God
Read MoreDalton & Tomich, PLC serves as General Counsel for the 144 churches within the Church of God in Michigan. The firm provides the legal expertise we need in dealing with the issues that arise during the course of fulfilling our ministry.
Read MoreI met Dan Dalton during a dark time for our church. He was recommended as the leading RLUIPA attorney in the nation. He demonstrated wisdom, expertise, a gentle nature, a calming inter-relational skill, genuineness, and a humble demeanor, while at the same time, being sharp, […]
Read MoreMr. Dalton’s expertise and experience helped us through a very difficult legal journey, ultimately achieving a favorable outcome. His personal interest in helping our church went “above and beyond” just the call of duty. His understanding of both legal and spiritual matters seems to uniquely […]
Read More