In a significant victory for equal treatment of religious groups under local zoning laws, the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) of Abington Township, Pennsylvania decided late Wednesday to grant a special exception permit to Congregation Kol Ami. In doing so, the Board reversed an earlier decision and issued important conclusions of law that significantly enhance the standing of religious groups wishing to locate in residential areas.
On March 20, 2001, the ZHB had refused even to consider Congregation Kol Ami's application for a special exception permit so that it could purchase and occupy a property formerly used as a convent by a group of Catholic nuns. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, together with local attorneys Peter Friedman and Daniel McCaffrey of Jaffe, Friedman, and Jonathan Auerbach, of Berger & Montague, then filed suit in federal court against Abington Township on behalf of Kol Ami. In July, Judge Clarence C. Newcomer ruled that the ZHB had violated Kol Ami's constitutional rights and ordered that the Board hold immediate hearings on the application. Those hearings concluded on August 10, and the Board granted the special exception on August 15.
In its decision, the ZHB held that Congregation Kol Ami's "proposed use of the Property as a synagogue and religious school is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the [zoning] ordinance," and that it "will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the community." Kol Ami had filed an amended application in which it offered to abide by certain conditions that would minimize impact on the surrounding community, and the ZHB accepted and incorporated those conditions into its Opinion and Order.
Becket Fund Legal Counsel Anthony Picarello said that the case sets an important precedent. "The federal court said that Abington Township can't treat religious groups differently and worse than other groups. The zoning board heard that message loud and clear." And while the township struggled for months to avoid giving Kol Ami a fair hearing, "in the end, you know you've got a strong case when the defendant rules against itself," Picarello concluded.