Thursday, January 13, 2011

Neighborly Love


Etz Chaim of Teaneck does not want to fight with their neighbors.

They really don't.

Etz Chaim of Teaneck doesn't want their neighbors to fight with them, either.

It became more obvious after reading today's Suburbanite. Here is the link to the article: Etz Chaim Files Lawsuit Against BOA

Some highlights:
  • Etz Chaim of Teaneck, an Orthodox Jewish congregation at 554 Queen Anne Road, is suing the board of adjustment.
  • Griggs Avenue resident, Janet Abbot a neighbor of the congregation, said that one of the restrictions imposed by the BOA was that Etz Chaim appoint a member of its congregation to serve as liaison with the neighbors. Abbot said that to the best of her knowledge, this has not occurred. "Nobody has contacted us," she said. She noted that except for a noise complaint, "Nothing untoward has happened," since the variances were granted.
  • "The board's decision was fair because it recognized that Etz Chaim has a right to have a congregation and also recognized that they created a synagogue without going through the normal processes. The board institutionalized what they said they were already doing," she (Abbot) said.
  • But Rif Campeas, another neighbor, was more outspoken. Campeas said that on at least one occasion since the variances were granted, a neighbor called the police because of excessive noise emanating from the congregation. "They said they would abide by the board of adjustment decision. The town has invested time and money, but Etz Chaim is never satisfied," Campeas said.
  • In an interview, Etz Chaim President Robert Erlich and Akiva Shapiro of the law firm of Gibson Dunn in New York City, co-council in the case, emphasized that the suit is against the board of adjustment and not the neighbors. "Our relationship with the neighbors has been good and we hope that this suit doesn't affect that relationship," Erlich said.
  • He (Erlich) noted that the dispute over noise involved a single incident that was resolved immediately and that the neighbor could have approached the congregation directly rather than calling the police. Erlich said that the congregation has not appointed a community liaison because it is taking the BOA's requirements as a whole and is working through them.
Let me add major points from Monday's article in the Bergen Record:
  • Etz Chaim, which battled with several neighbors for years prior to getting approval from the town’s zoning board, asserted in a lawsuit filed in Bergen County Superior Court that the variances it had sought – including a request to have only six parking spaces, rather than the 21 required – were relatively minor in nature.
  • A group of neighbors – some of whom had feuded with one of the members of Etz Chaim prior to the group’s establishment – complained to the town that the congregation should have applied for a house of worship permit.
  • The suit claims the restrictions violate the group’s First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights, the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and state law. It seeks to have many of the conditions thrown out and to impose punitive and compensatory damages.
  • The group’s lawyer, Akiva Shapiro, of New York-based Gibson Dunn, said his clients would welcome an out-of-court settlement.


Etz Chaim of Teaneck filed this lawsuit to get Teaneck to settle with them.

They do not want this to go to court.

Etz Chaim wants the leadership of Teaneck to feel the weight and pressure of a lawsuit based on the loss of religious freedoms, so they can suppress the Neighbors' rights to be heard.

There is no loss of religious freedom.

To quote Janet Abbot -
"The board's decision was fair because it recognized that Etz Chaim has a right to have a congregation and also recognized that they created a synagogue without going through the normal processes. The board institutionalized what they said they were already doing."

For more on this please read: It Must Be Real It's In Newspapers

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Don't know if you saw there is an article at www.bergennews.com that quotes Mr. Erlich - “I want to be clear that we seek amicable relations,” said Mr. Erlich. “I don’t want any of the neighbors to think that this is a shot against them. We are litigating against the town.”

Litigating against the "town" to me means litigating against all the residents of the town!

The full article is here - http://www.bergennews.com/2011/01/13/congregation-sues-over-permit-limits/

Anonymous said...

I have a question for Robert Erlich, he says in one of the articles "Our relationship with the neighbors has been good and we hope that this suit doesn't affect that relationship," Erlich said. But they haven't appointed their community liaison so how do they know that the relationship with the neighbors is really that solid? Just because the neighbors haven't said anything doesn't mean there aren't issue. Who are the neighbors even supposed to go to if they have any concerns or complaints? I think that Robert Erlich has shown from his testimony and the way he treated the neighbors (and the BOA) with such disdain that you can't approach him. So how can he really claim that the relationship is good?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone else who reads this blog not get a kick out of quoting Bobby Erlich? He is a riot! A real gem is his quote about why there is no community liaison yet: "Erlich said that the congregation has not appointed a community liaison because it is taking the BOA's requirements as a whole and is working through them."

What does this even mean? Taking the BOA's requirements as a whole? So they are doing all of them? But they are working through them? So they are doing them one at a time? Which one is it? If they are taking them as a whole, why hasn't every single requirement been satisfied yet? if they are doing them one at a time, how long does it take to put them all into place? Ok, I understand that planting privacy trees maybe can only be done at certain times of the year but how long does it take to appoint a community liaison? Maybe they haven't done this yet because they can't find as convincing a representative as Robert Erlich (yeah right) and he is spread too thin with his Zalman-Chanan-Rachel-puppetry, sorry, I mean presidency?

Lots of questions, so few answers etz chaim!

Post a Comment