## Facts

- A Reform Jewish congregation sought to purchase and use a 10.9-acre property in an R-1 low-density residential district in Abington Township, Pennsylvania.
- The property had been used for religious purposes since 1951, including by a Catholic order and later a Greek Orthodox congregation.
- A 1996 zoning amendment required “religious institutions” in the R-1 district to obtain a variance, while certain secular uses (e.g., kennels, municipal complexes, public utility facilities) could locate in the same district by special exception.
- A special exception required a showing that the proposed use was permitted and consistent with the public interest; a variance required proof of “unnecessary hardship,” a significantly higher standard.
- The congregation applied for a variance or, alternatively, a special exception to continue and expand worship use and parking.
- During the zoning proceedings, opposition included an expressed objection to having a synagogue nearby.
- The Zoning Hearing Board denied the requested relief, despite having granted a variance for religious use for the same property to another religious group several years earlier.
- The congregation filed federal claims, including under RLUIPA and the Equal Protection Clause, challenging the ordinance and its application to the proposed synagogue.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring religious institutions in the R-1 district to obtain a variance (rather than a special exception available to comparable secular uses) imposed a “substantial burden” on religious exercise under RLUIPA.
2. Whether, as applied, the ordinance and denial of relief violated equal protection by treating the congregation differently from similarly situated secular uses without adequate justification.
3. Whether the Township could justify the burden and differential treatment based on asserted interests such as preserving low-density neighborhoods and controlling traffic.

## Decision

- The court held that, as applied to the congregation’s effort to use the property as a synagogue, the zoning scheme violated RLUIPA by imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise and failing strict scrutiny.
- The court held that, as applied, the scheme also violated the Equal Protection Clause by subjecting religious use to more onerous standards than comparable secular uses in the same district.
- The Township’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and the congregation obtained relief on the core as-applied RLUIPA and equal protection claims.

## Legal Principles

- A land-use regulation violates RLUIPA if it imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise unless the government proves the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means.
- In zoning equal-protection challenges, the threshold inquiry is whether the claimant is similarly situated to uses permitted as of right or by special exception; differential treatment must be justified under the applicable scrutiny.
- A materially more demanding approval pathway for religious use than for comparable secular uses can support findings of both a substantial burden under RLUIPA and unconstitutional unequal treatment when the government cannot justify the disparity.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that forcing religious institutions in a residential district to satisfy a stringent variance standard—while allowing comparable secular uses by special exception—substantially burdened religious exercise and denied equal protection when applied to block the congregation’s proposed synagogue without a narrowly justified basis.


Congregation Kol Ami v. Abington Township, 2004 WL 1837037 (E.D. Pa. 2004)