Minhal Acad. of Turnersville v. Twp. of Wash.

MINHAL ACADEMY OF TURNERSVILLE, INC. and JASO ASSOCIATES, PA Plaintiffs, v. TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON, and the ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON Defendants.

No. 1:20-cv-01120-JHR

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

August 25, 2021

OPINION

Joseph H. Rodriguez, U.S.D.J.

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiffs Minhal Academy of Turnersville, Inc. (“MAT”) and Jaso Associates, PA (“Jaso”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”). [Dkt. 50]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Plaintiffs' Motion.

I. Background

This case concerns Township of Washington (“the Township”) and the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Washington (the “Zoning Board”) (collectively “Defendants”) and their refusal to permit Plaintiffs to operate a mosque in a commercial condominium complex in Washington Township, New Jersey. MAT “is a Muslim religious organization that serves approximately 35 congregants, ” most of whom reside in Washington Township. [Dkt. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 12-13]. In 2014, MAT began hosting prayer services on Friday afternoons in an office condominium in Sewell, New Jersey. [Compl ¶¶ 16, 28-32]. Plaintiffs allege that this condominium is no longer big enough to accommodate MAT's growing congregation and that they are forced to rent hotel space, event halls, or Township park space for prayer services and related activities at significant cost and inconvenience. [Compl. ¶¶ 50-84]. In 2018 Plaintiffs purchased three adjacent units in the same condominium complex with the intent of expanding their mosque. [Compl. ¶¶ 90-93].

Plaintiffs' mosque is located in a commercial plaza^[1] in a “Neighborhood Commercial” (“NC”) zoning district, ^[2] where “churches”^[3] are prohibited under the Township's zoning code. [Compl. ¶¶ 94, 169]. Township zoning codes only permit churches to operate unconditionally in two zoning districts: institutional zoning districts (“INS”) and mixed-use developments (“MUD”). [Compl. ¶ 166]. However, the Township's municipal code also authorizes the Township zoning board to grant variances that allow a land use that is otherwise prohibited. [Compl. ¶ 178]; Twp. Code § 125-20(A), (B). With a variance, churches are conditionally permitted in other zoning districts, including Neighborhood Commercial districts. E.g. Twp. Code § 285-29. The Township has granted use variances to operate churches for non-Muslim religious groups in the past. [E.g. Compl. ¶¶ 343, 353; Am. Answer ¶ 343, 353].

According to the Complaint, when Plaintiffs began to use their mosque in 2014, they obtained a certificate of occupancy from the Township to use the building as an “administrative office” “based upon the recommendation of the Mayor and [a] representative of the Township Zoning Officer.^[4] [Compl. ¶ 30]. In September 2018, after acquiring the additional condominium units, MAT applied for and received a zoning permit to use the property as a “Wellness and Healing Center” without any variance. [Compl. ¶¶ 145, 148]. MAT claims that it sought approval as a “Wellness and Healing Center” only after consulting with and obtaining approval from “the Township Zoning Officer.” [Compl. ¶ 146]. Plaintiffs allege-but Defendants deny- that the “Township Zoning Officer was aware that MAT was operating as a Mosque and holding religious activities.” [Compl. ¶ 147]. MAT received a temporary Certificate of Occupancy from the Township to continue using the property [Compl. ¶ 149], and a “building permit from the Township to begin interior renovations.” [Compl. ¶¶ 150-51].

According to the Complaint, MAT's relationship with the Township and its neighbors soured after the March 15, 2019 mass shooting at mosques in New Zealand. [Compl. ¶ 152]. In the wake of that tragedy, an MAT congregant asked Township police to provide protection for MAT's Friday prayer services. [Compl. ¶ 153]. After Township police refused, the congregant posted about this refusal on Facebook. [Compl. ¶ 154-55]. “Subsequently, upon information and belief, hundreds of local residents communicated with the Township Mayor and Township Police Chief's office complaining about MAT.” [Compl. ¶ 156]. On March 22, 2019, the Township's Construction Code Official “issued Notices and Orders of Penalty for work without a permit at the Property” and rescinded the zoning permit and certificate of occupancy issued to MAT. [Compl. ¶¶ 157-61].

On August 14, 2019, MAT applied to the Zoning Board for a variance that would allow MAT to use its space as a mosque. [Compl. ¶ 185]. “MAT also sought a site plan waiver, as MAT proposed no changes to the building or the site, including lighting, landscaping, parking or circulation.” [Compl. ¶ 188]. On October 7, 2019, MAT attended a hearing before the Zoning Board concerning its application. [Compl. ¶ 202]. MAT indicated that it would agree to “reasonable conditions of approval, ” including limiting activities that could be conducted onsite. [Compl. ¶ 206]. MAT's professional planner, James Miller (“Miller”) attended the hearing and testified that MAT satisfied the criteria necessary for conditional approval and a site plan waiver, and that the benefits to the community of approving the application outweighed any detriments. [Compl. ¶¶ 219-38]. Miller also testified that “the proposed mosque was consistent with many other uses in the NC zoning district in terms of impact and activity level.” [Compl. ¶ 230].

Despite Plaintiffs' presentation, the Zoning Board voted to deny Plaintiffs' use variance application at the hearing and adopted this denial by resolution on November 18, 2019 (“the Resolution”). [Compl. ¶¶ 253-55]. Based on the Complaint and Defendants' opposition brief, it appears that the Township denied Plaintiffs' application due to concerns over the capacity and configuration of the parking lot for the complex where the mosque is located. [Compl. ¶¶ 26269; Dkt. 56 at 25-26, 30]. The parties disagree as to the propriety of the Zoning Board's conclusion and the method used to reach that conclusion. Plaintiffs allege that the Zoning Board did not apply the proper legal standard when reviewing Plaintiffs' application. [Compl. ¶¶ 250, 290]. Plaintiffs also allege that the Resolution only provides conclusory justifications for its decision, and that the conclusions contradicted record facts. [Compl. ¶¶ 257-269]. Plaintiffs allege that the proffered reasons were merely “pretextual justifications for denial, ” [Compl. ¶ 270], and that the Zoning Board “has not denied prior church applications” over similar concerns. [Compl. ¶ 271]. “Upon information and belief, ” Plaintiffs allege that the Zoning Board scrutinized their variance application more rigorously than similar applications from non- Muslim institutions. [E.g. Compl. ¶¶ 292-94, 309]. Defendants do not admit or outright deny these allegations. [Am. Answer ¶¶ 292-94, 309].

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit alleging violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a) (“RLUIPA”) (Counts I-III); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on Plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause (Count IV); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on Plaintiffs' equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment (Count V); New Jersey Common Law (Count VI); and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) (Count VII). [Dkt. 1]. Defendants filed their initial answer [Dkt. 9] which Plaintiffs moved to strike. [Dkt. 22]. Judge Donio issued an order withdrawing Plaintiffs' motion to strike without prejudice and requiring Defendants to serve an amended answer. [Dkt. 34]. Defendants filed an amended answer pursuant to this order. [Dkt. 36]. Plaintiffs then filed the present motion for judgment on the pleadings. [Dkt. 50].

II. Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

III. Legal Standard

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) ‘is analyzed under the same standards that apply to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.'” Wolfington v. Reconstructive Orthopaedic Assocs. II PC, 935 F.3d 187, 195 (3d Cir. 2019) (Revell v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 598 F.3d 128, 134 (3d Cir. 2010)). “A motion for judgment on the pleadings will be granted if, on the basis of the pleadings, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” DiCarlo v. St. Mary Hosp., 530 F.3d 255, 262 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing Allah v. Brown, 351 F.Supp.2d 278, 280 (D.N.J. 2004)). Under Rule 12(c) “‘judgment will not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that [the movant] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'” Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 290-91 (3d Cir. 1988)). “[The Court] must view the facts presented in the pleadings and the inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id.

As with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), courts generally cannot consider materials outside of the pleadings, but may consider materials that are “expressly relied upon or integral to the pleadings or matters of public record.” Syncsort Inc. v. Sequential Software, Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 318, 325 (D.N.J. 1999) (collecting cases).

IV. Analysis

Although Plaintiffs assert throughout their brief that they seek judgment on the pleadings with respect to Counts I-IV and VII of their Complaint, their substantive briefing only addresses their RLUIPA claims alleged at Counts I-III. Because Plaintiffs did not brief their § 1983 (Count IV) and NJLAD (Count VII) claims, the Court will not analyze these claims and will only consider Plaintiffs' RLUIPA claims.

Congress...