Chabad Lubavitch sues Atlantic Beach over religious center plans

In the United States, a Hasidic Jewish organization known as Chabad Lubavitch of the Beaches has taken legal action against the Village of Atlantic Beach after the village's zoning appeals board rejected their application to construct a religious and educational center. This conflict has been ongoing for three years, centering on a vacant property located on Park Street, just short of a block from the Village Hall. The litigation commenced following a decision made by the Board of Zoning Appeals in the previous month, which cited several reasons for the denial. These included issues related to the proposed signage's size, concerns about the drive-through canopy, insufficient parking availability, and the potential for increased traffic congestion. The rejected application and the resulting lawsuit highlight broader issues of religious discrimination and zoning disputes faced by minority communities in similar situations. The amended complaint, which was filed on a recent Friday in the U.S. District Court in Central Islip, names several parties responsible for the decision: the village, its Board of Zoning Appeals, Mayor George Pappas, and the Atlantic Beach Board of Trustees. The lawsuit contends that officials within Atlantic Beach engaged in a systematic campaign of discrimination against Chabad. This is evidenced by previously unreported texts and emails among the village officials that have been described by the plaintiffs as antisemitic in nature. For instance, communications between Village Associate Justice Allison Lewis and Mayor Pappas revealed sentiments that suggested local opposition to Chabad, with Justice Lewis commenting that “most people don’t want the Chabad and just don’t want to say it.” Further reinforcing allegations of bias, Trustee Patricia Beaumont expressed discomfort in another message, labeling the purchasing activities of Orthodox Jews as “scary,” claiming they are “buying the world town-by-town, city-by-city.” Such statements indicate a potentially hostile environment towards religious minorities within the village's leadership, which may have influenced decisions regarding the proposal. Chabad's attorney, Jeremy Dys, who represents them through the nonprofit First Liberty Institute based in Texas, pointed out that the village’s actions suggest an unwillingness to acknowledge or amend past discriminatory behavior despite previous recognition of it. In response to these events, Chabad Lubavitch has filed its lawsuit, which invokes allegations of religious discrimination as a means to block the village's attempt to seize the property via eminent domain. The revival of the lawsuit not only reflects the specific grievances of the Chabad organization but also raises larger questions about the intersection of religious freedom and municipal governance in America. This case may set a significant precedent for how similar disputes are handled in the future, potentially impacting the balance between community zoning laws and the rights of minority religious groups to establish places of worship and education in their locales.