RNA - In a victory for a group that has sued the township for rejecting its plans to build a mosque in Liberty Corner, a federal judge has ruled that a parking requirement imposed by the township was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Michael A. Shipp issued the ruling in Trenton on Saturday, Dec. 31, in response to a motion for partial judgement on parking filed by the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge (ISBR), which sought to build the mosque.
At issue was a township Planning Board decision to require the ISBR to provide more parking than normally prescribed by the township for houses of worship.
The ordinance requires one parking space for every three pew seats. Mosques, however, do not have pews. After ISBR President Ali Chaudry told the board that virtually all ISBR worshippers are adult men who presumably drive alone, the board, using planning standards for mosques, imposed a tougher parking standard.
The ISBR initially proposed 50 parking spaces for a mosque that was to house up to 142 worshippers. But at the board’s behest, it upped the number of parking spaces to 107, which in turn required changes to the screening and drainage plans.
The board denied the proposal in a 4-2 vote on Dec. 8, 2015. The plans were faulted as failing to provide sufficient screening and buffering next to a home, having inadequate storm water management plans, having an unsafe traffic circulation plan, and failing to meet fire safety standards.
The ISBR and Chaudry, a Basking Ridge resident and former township mayor, challenged the board’s denial in a lawsuit filed in federal court on March 10, 2016. The suit claimed the denial resulted from anti-Muslim attitudes in the community and violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000.
The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Adeel Mangi of the law firm of Paterson, Belknap, Webb and Tyler of New York, praised the ruling by Judge Shipp.
“The court has held that Bernards Township discriminated against ISBR based on its Islamic faith and that the township’s actions were unconstitutional,” Mangi said. “This ruling resolves the key disputed land use issues in the case because many of the township’s bases for denial depended on its requirement of a supersized parking lot.
847/940