Village passes controversial ‘place of worship’ law
Monroe. Earlier this year, the proposed law drew criticism from NYS Attorney General Letitia James who asked the board to halt implementation.
Monroe /
| 06 Dec 2023 | 12:38
A Jewish member of the Monroe community raised concerns about the law to the board and asked why it was needed.
Claims of antisemitism were hurled during the December 5th Monroe Village Board meeting. The village trustees and mayor unanimously passed Local Law #23 of 2023, drawing sharp criticism from two members of the public who spoke during the meeting.
The local law would require village residents interested in converting their homes into places of worship — and potentially benefiting from the tax incentives that come with doing so — to now go before the Monroe Village Planning Board in the same manner any local project would that impacts its neighbors and surrounding communities.
The new law was over two years in the works, according to village attorney Alyse D. Terhune. Orange County had previously ruled on May 23 in a letter to the village board that it was a local law and subject to local determination, meaning that the Village of Monroe is within its right to make this specific change to its zoning rules and regulations. In September, Attorney General Letitia James sent a letter to the village board asking them to hold off on any decisions involving this law until she had a chance to evaluate it, citing concerns of discrimination against Orthodox Jewish residents. It was not clear from tonight’s board meeting if the attorney general had given her blessing to the village on this law.
Trustee John Karl stressed during the discussion of the law that it does not, in any way, prevent someone from using their home or converting it into a house of worship. It would just introduce the additional step of having to go to the planning board. This would allow the planning board to help applicants plan for the transition and make sure they are following the appropriate rules and safety regulations for operating as a house of worship within a residential neighborhood. One member of the public expressed skepticism at this. He suggested that the village planning board moves too slowly and would not be able to address these requests expeditiously.
“We should be able to live in peace.”
During public comment, the village board was accused of “pushing this law through” despite its actual two-year gestation period. This member of the public then said the board’s decision would open “a whole can of worms.” It was then implied that the decision would be viewed as antisemitic.
Village attorney Terhune stressed that the law applies to every place of worship equally. She added, “I’m sorry if the village is being threatened with lawsuits, but the fact is that the board spent a considerable amount of time, and I think the local law itself as well as the comprehensive plan explained why the village board felt this was necessary so that all religious rights were protected as well as the neighborhoods and community at large.”
Another member of the public stated that the law was done expressly “against the Jewish community” but cited no evidence to support his claim.