Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 5 NEW JERSEY (12/31/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether a planning board violated the Nondiscrimination Provision of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by ap- plying a parking ordinance differently on the basis of religion. More specifically, it addressed whether or not the application of a parking ordinance was neutral and generally applicable with regard to religion. The case also addressed whether a provision in a parking ordinance, which allowed a planning board to change a 3:1 ratio between seats and parking spaces for churches, was unconstitutionally vague. The Background/Facts: In 2011, The Islamic Society of Basking Ridge ("ISBR") purchased property (the "Property") in the Township of Bernards (the "Township") with the goal of building a mosque on the Property. In April 2012, ISBR applied for a preliminary and final site plan approval related to its proposed mosque. Among other things, the site' plan provided for fifty parking spaces based on the mosque's estimated occupancy of 150 people. The Township's Parking Ordinance set forth a 3:1 ratio, between seats and parking spaces, as an acceptable standard for "churches." After community opposition, and 39 hearings over a three -and -a -half year period, the Planning Board required ISBR to construct 107 parking spaces —which far exceeded the 3:1 ratio. ISBR ultimately revised its site plan to provide for 107 parking spaces, although it did not formally create a final site plan including that revision. Nevertheless, in January 2016, the Planning Board denied ISBR's application. In denying ISBR's application, the Planning Board explained that it believed that the Parking Ordinance's 3:1 ratio for "churches" applied only to Christian Churches. The Planning Board also explained that the Parking Ordinance required the Board to engage in an individualized analysis of every applicant's parking need, regardless of the ratios set forth in the ordinance. Specifically, the Board pointed to language in the Parking Ordinance, which referred to a schedule of standards, which included the 3:1 ratio for "churches," and which further provided as follows: Since a specific use may generate a parking demand different from those enumerated [in the schedule], documentation and testimony shall be pre- sented to the Board as to the anticipated parking demand. Based upon such documentation and testimony, the Board may: . . . Allow construction of a lesser number of spaces, [or] . . . In the case of nonresidential uses, require that provision be made for the construction of spaces in excess of those required . . . to ensure that the parking demand will be accommodated by off-street spaces. ISBR challenged the Planning Board's decision. ISBR alleged that the Planning Board's disparate application of the off-street parking require- ment between Christian churches and Muslim mosques violated the Non- discrimination Provision of the federal RLUIPA. RLUIPA prohibits discrimination and impermissible exclusion on the © 2017 Thomson Reuters 9