Call The Waaaambulance

Jewish Standard - June 29, 2012

The conflict seemed to have concluded in September 2010, when the synagogue received the zoning variances necessary to operate as a synagogue in exchange for stipulations including a restriction on weekday services and the length of Shabbat kiddushes.

But the synagogue turned around and filed suit against the town, saying that the restrictions were null because it agreed to them under duress, and because they violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which restricts local laws that place a “substantial burden” on religious practice.

Unless the case is settled before trial, a jury will be asked to decide questions set out by Judge Alexander H. Carver III in his ruling earlier this month. 

They include: 

1- What restrictions did the congregation agree to? 

2 - Were the restrictions agreed to under duress and therefore invalid? 

3 - Are the conditions more severe than those placed on other non-profit institutions operating in residential neighborhoods? 

4 - And are those restrictions legal under the federal law?

_____________________________________________________________

Great questions! 

What did they agree to? Under Duress? Severe Conditions? Legal?

Instead of speculating, I will use Etz Chaim's own words.

From the aftermath of the BOA approving Etz Chaim, here is a compilation of Etz Chaim's lawyer Ed Trawinski's quotes, ”coerced” President Robert Erlich's quotes, and founder and spiritual leader Rabbi Daniel Feldman's quotes.

Suburbanite from August 19,2010
On at least one occasion during the hearings, Edward Trawinski, attorney for Etz Chaim, threatened to sue the township for discrimination.

Etz Chaim President Robert Erlich wrote in an e-mail that the community liaison position is not unique to this application, but that the BOA has required such a position for similar applications.
"We are pleased with the approval and we will comply with all conditions imposed," Erlich wrote.


Bergen County Jewish newspaper (not the secular papers)
The Jewish Standard from August 20, 2010 the week after the BOA approval:
“The board, based upon testimony, came to the correct legal decision,” said Ed Trawinski, the lawyer who represented Etz Chaim through the proceedings. “And the board balanced the exercise of freedom of religion with the effort to minimize the impact on a residential neighborhood.”


A property tax deduction may be in Etz Chaim’s future, but the organization will have to consult a tax attorney now that a portion of the property has been designated a house of worship, Trawinski said.


“That was an unintended consequence because we were always happy with our status as a prayer group,” said Robert Erlich, the group’s president. “Obviously if there’s a tax benefit, as a congregation we’d be foolish not to take it.”


“I am gratified by the decision,” Feldman wrote in an e-mail to The Jewish Standard. “I don’t know all the details of the stipulations, but we will abide by them as we have always complied with all instructions of the township.”


“From an organizational standpoint, nothing has changed,” Erlich said. “Once we get out certificate of occupancy, instead of operating as a prayer group, we will operate as a house of worship.”


“My hope is Etz Chaim and the residents will move forward and put this behind them,” Trawinski said.



From Bergen Record - October 17, 2010
"We are hoping to have a more peaceful future," Feldman said Friday.

"It's quite a relief," said Robert Ehrlich, the president of the group. "From our perspective, this was never a fight worth fighting. 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."


January 2011, 5 months later:


Teaneck Patch - June 20, 2012
“As we have said from the very beginning, the intrusive, oppressive and unequal restrictions imposed by the Teaneck Board of Adjustment on Etz Chaim as a house of worship strike at this nation’s most cherished freedoms and cannot be justified,” the group’s attorney Akiva Shapiro, of New York-based Gibson Dunn, said in an e-mail. “We are confident that a jury will agree when this case goes to trial, as the Court’s summary judgment opinion indicated it would.”


No Akiva, that's not what was said from the beginning. 
This is what was said:


“The board, based upon testimony, came to the correct legal decision,” said Ed Trawinski, the lawyer who represented Etz Chaim through the proceedings. “And the board balanced the exercise of freedom of religion with the effort to minimize the impact on a residential neighborhood.”