Opinion ID: 3011942
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Rationality

Text: Since we remand for resolution of the similarity of uses issue, we need not reach the ultimate rationality question, even though the District Court did so. We do however, offer some observations on that issue should the District Court need to revisit it. First, we note that there is no evidence of anti-Jewish or anti-religious animus in the record. Although such evidence is not necessary to sustain an equal protection violation, this court has stated that negative attitudes or biases, unfounded fears or speculation, prejudice, self-interest, or ignorance [are] arbitrary and irrational ends that warrant finding a statute unconstitutional. Midnight Sessions, 945 F.2d at 685. Second, the facts of this case illustrate why religious uses may be, in some cases, incompatible with a place ofquiet seclusion. When conducting its Comprehensive Plan in 1992, the Township determined that institutional uses, such as schools, churches, and hospitals, have distinctive requirements that would best be addressed by placing them in particular districts. Specifically, the Township concluded that although these entities provide many benefits to the community, they also have specific use, space and locational requirements which are inherently different from other land categories . . . [and] necessitate[ ] a separate land use classification. [889a]. To that end, the CSCommunity Service District was established to meet the particular needs of churches and other institutions. [1024a]. In view of the enormously broad leeway afforded municipalities in making land use classifications, see discussion supra, it is strongly arguable that the Township’s decision to group churches together with schools, hospitals, and other institutions is rationally related to the needs of these entities, their impact on neighboring properties, and their inherent compatibility or incompatibility with adjoining uses. If so, the foregoing 35 standard of review in land use cases will be met. Such planning is the raison d’etre of zoning ordinances, and broad latitude is given to authorities that rationally conduct this municipal function. See Euclid, 272 U.S. at 388-89 (The inclusion of a reasonable margin to insure effective enforcement, will not put upon a law, otherwise valid, the stamp of invalidity.). Finally, we do not believe land use planners can assume anymore that religious uses are inherently compatible with family and residential uses. See, e.g., Megachurches as Minitowns, NYT F1, F6 (May 9, 2002). Churches may be incompatible with residential zones, as they bring congestion; they generate traffic and create parking problems; they can cause a deterioration of property values in a residential zone . . . . Jewish Reconstructionist Synagogue v. Village of Roslyn Harbor, 38 N.Y.2d 283, 293 (1975). Thus, the District Court must refrain from making a blanket determination that religious institutions are inherently compatible, and, as argued by the Congregation, essential to residential zoning. See supra n.5. These matters need to be considered on remand as well.