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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.