AND..........................................
Monday, January 10, 2011
BY JOSEPH AX
THE RECORD
STAFF WRITER
TEANECK — A Queen Anne Road congregation that received a house of worship permit last fall after months of controversial hearings has appealed several of the permit’s conditions, calling them arbitrary and unduly burdensome.
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.
By contrast, the congregation claimed, the board’s conditions “are vague and ambiguous on their face, largely have no connection to any legitimate land use concern, and are far more onerous than the conditions imposed on other, comparable secular and religious institutions.”
The case has sometimes delved into the murky definition of a “house of worship,” as the congregation holds services in a private residence.
Etz Chaim owns 554 Queen Anne Road, and the group’s rabbi, Daniel Feldman, lives at the home. The congregation received permission from the town to add a family room and to hold private prayer meetings there.
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 town’s zoning official issued a cease and desist order in August 2008, and the congregation decided to apply for the permit rather than filing a lawsuit then. After a series of contentious hearings, the zoning board issued the permit – along with two dozen conditions – last fall.
Among the restrictions flagged in the lawsuit are a ban on using the outdoor space for celebrations, a limit on the number of religious services permitted during the week, a ban on outdoor signage and a requirement that participants leave the home an hour after services are finished on Saturday mornings, as well as others.
“Shackled by the onerous conditions imposed by the board, Etz Chaim is not able to proceed as a fully operational Orthodox Jewish house of worship,” the lawsuit reads.
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.
Harold Ritvo, the zoning board attorney, did not return a call seeking comment. Rif Campeas, one of the neighbors who led the fight against Etz Chaim, declined to comment on the suit.
E-mail: ax@northjersey.com
Neighbor Bypass
Monday, January 10, 2011
BY JOSEPH AX
THE RECORD
STAFF WRITER
TEANECK — A Queen Anne Road congregation that received a house of worship permit last fall after months of controversial hearings has appealed several of the permit’s conditions, calling them arbitrary and unduly burdensome.
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.
By contrast, the congregation claimed, the board’s conditions “are vague and ambiguous on their face, largely have no connection to any legitimate land use concern, and are far more onerous than the conditions imposed on other, comparable secular and religious institutions.”
The case has sometimes delved into the murky definition of a “house of worship,” as the congregation holds services in a private residence.
Etz Chaim owns 554 Queen Anne Road, and the group’s rabbi, Daniel Feldman, lives at the home. The congregation received permission from the town to add a family room and to hold private prayer meetings there.
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 town’s zoning official issued a cease and desist order in August 2008, and the congregation decided to apply for the permit rather than filing a lawsuit then. After a series of contentious hearings, the zoning board issued the permit – along with two dozen conditions – last fall.
Among the restrictions flagged in the lawsuit are a ban on using the outdoor space for celebrations, a limit on the number of religious services permitted during the week, a ban on outdoor signage and a requirement that participants leave the home an hour after services are finished on Saturday mornings, as well as others.
“Shackled by the onerous conditions imposed by the board, Etz Chaim is not able to proceed as a fully operational Orthodox Jewish house of worship,” the lawsuit reads.
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.
Harold Ritvo, the zoning board attorney, did not return a call seeking comment. Rif Campeas, one of the neighbors who led the fight against Etz Chaim, declined to comment on the suit.
E-mail: ax@northjersey.com
13 comments:
Was this article the topic of conversation at Etz Chaim's Management meeting last night? They probably need to make sure everyone is on the same page or to make sure no one says anything to anyone. I hope Rabbi Daniel wasn't there so he can claim he knew nothing about the article and lawsuit and what Robert Erlich says and everything else he would prefer to just avoid.
Are you joking? Each one was looking around the room going who snitched? How did it get out? Lets see we changed the open and aboveboard policy at 11/28/2010 at 8 P.M. so that is technically not a lie. Our statement that we would accept the Board of Adjustment decision was changed on 11/15/2010 so thats not a lie. Oh yeah we need a halachic decision that says we have to have outdoor celebrations and a sign to live a full orthodox life. Anybody have smicha and want to declare it?
Ok we are free of any sin and responsibility march out with our heads held high.
I heard that part of their issue with the town relates to taxes. Were they denied some sort of a tax break they were expecting?
How magnanimous of the wonderful EC people to "welcome an out-of-court settlement." They tried to get around the neighbors and their right to be heard once before and they are doing it again. So much for Robert Erlich’s prophetic word: “We want to move on. To the extent that the neighbors have comments on things we can do to make their lives less disruptive, we're willing to do that.”
I am frum and its not a restriction on my ability to practice my orthodox judaism if my shul doesn't have a sign. Also, I sometimes stay really late after kiddushes when my shul has them and I don't think I have ever stayed for for more than an hour. I guess Etz Chaim does food good and the members just don't want to leave.
Does anyone know a good lawyer? I was just at shoprite stocking up before the storm and they don't have kosher chopped spinach. They are infringing on my ability to practice as a Orthodox Jew. Anyone have etz chaim's lawyers number?
The tax question is interesting. Maybe the town took Daniel Feldman at his word that only 5 hours out of the week was the family room used for prayer and told them that 5/168 = 2.9 % was tax free.
How appropriate is it to be bitten by your own words? Any way to find out? Tax assessment should be public information till then it is only a fantasy.
http://554queenanne.info/554QueenAnneComplaint12-17-2010.pdf
Anon yesterday 2:16 pm. It's probably not taxes because the BOA doesn't deal with real estate taxes I don't think. It seems that etz chaim's problem is with the restrictions that the BOA put on the variance but Robert erlich's testimony and direct quotes in the press agreed to the restrictions so I don't really get why the lawsuit.
Anyone seen the article in the Suburbanite?
Why don't any of the reporters Suburbanite, Record, and Jewish Standard ever question these people about their obviously contradictory position. Family room,acceptance of BOA decision, poor relationship with neighbors, Feldman Temple as architects file name etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum
Hey anon 5:48- I think its because these guys are scared to piss off the clergy. There is this crazy belief that because someone is a cleric they deserve automatic respect. I partly agree BUT only in a case where the clergyman has worked to deserve that respect. Because someone has a certificate that says they are ordained or have permission to act as a person of the cloth doesn't mean they know how to behave. Just take one look at how Etz Chaim operates and you will have a tough time respecting the clerical leader who guides the group. Its about time that the press starting asking Etz Chaim AND Rabbi Feldman the tough questions.
“Shackled by the onerous conditions imposed by the board, Etz Chaim is not able to proceed as a fully operational Orthodox Jewish house of worship,”
How appropriate on MLK day to use this type of language. How inappropriate is it to use it in connection with this case. Does the lawyer also write Bodice rippers for a living? "Shackled Etz Chaim" were they not living their lives as Orthodox Jews before they got their variances? Remember how they railed against adding parking because it would change the character of the neighborhood? What does a sign do to the character of the neighborhood? Consistency? Only when it works for Etz Chaim.
Hey if this goes to trial do they get to call others besides Robert Erlich to the stand? I can't wait to have them answer questions under oath. Want to bet they back off before theyanswer difficult questions?
Post a Comment