Toms River RLUIPA Power Point Presentation

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v.
TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER

Civ. Act. No. 3:21-cv-04633
CONSENT ORDER

SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION
Presented to:
Toms River Township Council
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER
RLUIPA Presentation
FICTION #1
The Township was under no threat of litigation.

FACT
 September 17, 2020: DOJ issues a “notice of suit.” Basically an ultimatum:

Litigation to commence within 12 days unless the Township entered into
negotiations. DOJ DOESN’T BLUFF.
 February 17 and 23, 2021: Two federal lawsuits filed by private plaintiffs
asserting the same claims under RLUIPA.

 March 11, 2021: Federal action opened by DOJ; consent order entered by
Federal District Court.
RLUIPA Presentation
RLUIPA Presentation
RLUIPA Presentation
RLUIPA Presentation
FICTION #2
The costs of litigation would have been minimal.
FACT
 In New Jersey, recent RLUIPA settlements/judgments ranged from $400,000

to over $7.75 million, in municipalities smaller than Toms River.
 Triple threat: Not only the DOJ, but also the two private lawsuits.
 Our experts concluded that, fines, penalties, judgments, and attorneys’

fees (both sides), in the three cases altogether would have exceeded $10
million.
 Non-monetary costs: Cede control over zoning to the Federal Government

or the Federal Courts.
RLUIPA Presentation
FICTION #3
Why worry? Insurance will cover it.
FACT

 Insurance coverage is not automatic.
 Township received no guarantee of coverage.
 Insurance policies have limits; only a small percentage of any judgment

would have been covered, if at all.
 Insurance doesn’t cover non-monetary costs: loss of control over zoning.

RLUIPA Presentation
RLUIPA Presentation
FICTION #4

The case was defensible, if not winnable.
FACT

 No evidence supporting minimum 10-acre zoning for religious places of
assembly:
 75% under 10 acres
 25% 10 acres or more

 No compelling justification for jump from 2 to 10 acres in 2017:
 Legal expert: 10-acre minimum is unprecedented nationally.
 Break with 40 years of history: 2-acre minimum from 1979-2017.
 Burdensome, discriminatory, exclusionary: HOW subject to the most
restrictive zoning standards, contrary to RLUIPA.
RLUIPA Presentation
RLUIPA Presentation
FICTION #5

Houses of worship (“HOW”) are now permitted in residential zones.
FACT

 HOW can only locate in residential zones on state and county roadways,
SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS:
 2-acre minimum lot size
 Proper roadway frontage, depending on lot size.
 Parking, buffers, landscaping, lot coverage, and other requirements.
 Same conditions apply to all comparable places of assembly, religious and

non-religious.
RLUIPA Presentation
FICTION #6

HOW can locate on residential streets.

FACT

 Residential streets are explicitly OFF-LIMITS for all places of assembly,
religious and non-religious.

RLUIPA Presentation
FICTION #7

The Consent Order completely overhauls Township zoning.

FACT

 Revert back to the pre-2017 zoning regulations:

 2-acre minimum lot size (1979-2017)

 Minor collector roadways (1991-2017)

 Conditionally permitted in RR, R-800, R-400 (1979-2009)

 Consistent with 30-40 years of historical precedent.
RLUIPA Presentation
FICTION #8

Religious places of assembly get special treatment.

FACT

 Under the revised zoning, comparable religious and secular places of
assembly are subject to the same standards.
 Religious places of assembly go back to the 2017 standards.
 No significant increase in new religious assemblies under prior standards.

 Total tax roll: 43,000 parcels
 Religiously exempt: 47
 From 2006-2021: 8 religiously-exempt properties added
 Cross-denominational: 3 Christian; 3 Jewish; 2 Hindu
RLUIPA Presentation
FICTION #9

The Township “caved” to the Federal Government.

FACT
 This is a “rewind,” not a “redo” – Township drew the line at the pre-2017
zoning standards.
 Also got back important neighborhood protections:
 No places of assembly on residential streets.

 Only smaller HOW (max 2.5 acres) on “minor” roadways.
 Exclusions for Maine Street, Shenandoah Blvd., and Indian Hill Road.

RLUIPA Presentation
FICTION #10

The Township made a “bad deal.”
FACT

LITIGATION vs. SETTLEMENT

$ Millions in judgments $0 cost to taxpayers
Zoning controlled by federal courts Local control over zoning

No restrictions on assemblies Reasonable conditions, with
protections for residential
streets/neighborhoods
Continued costly litigation with Less susceptible to future

private plaintiffs litigation

Toms River RLUIPA Power Point Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Toms River RLUIPA Power Point Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v.

TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER

The Township was under no threat of litigation.

 September 17, 2020: DOJ issues a “notice of suit.” Basically an ultimatum:

The costs of litigation would have been minimal.

 In New Jersey, recent RLUIPA settlements/judgments ranged from $400,000

 Our experts concluded that, fines, penalties, judgments, and attorneys’

 Non-monetary costs: Cede control over zoning to the Federal Government

Why worry? Insurance will cover it.

 Township received no guarantee of coverage.

 Insurance policies have limits; only a small percentage of any judgment

 Insurance doesn’t cover non-monetary costs: loss of control over zoning.

 25% 10 acres or more

 2-acre minimum lot size

 Proper roadway frontage, depending on lot size.

 Parking, buffers, landscaping, lot coverage, and other requirements.

 Same conditions apply to all comparable places of assembly, religious and

 Religious places of assembly go back to the 2017 standards.

 No significant increase in new religious assemblies under prior standards.

 Also got back important neighborhood protections:

 No places of assembly on residential streets.

Zoning controlled by federal courts Local control over zoning

Continued costly litigation with Less susceptible to future

You might also like