case| 116-cv-01599-FLW-LHG Document 21 Filed 02/05/18. Page 1 of 5 PagelD: 140 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CHABAD JEWISH CENTER OF ' TOMS RIVER, INC. and RABBI MOSHE GOURARIE, Civ, No, 3:16:01599 (FLW) (LH) Paints, 5 Vs. + ORDER FOR JUDGMENT ‘THE TOWNSHIP OF TOMS RIVER * and THE TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT + Defendants . ‘THIS MATTER having been opened tothe Court on the Complaint ofthe Pent, Chabad Jesh Centr of Toms River, Is. and Rabbi Mosie Gourre Cleively the Plaintiffs”) pursuant to the Substantial Burdens, Nondiseriminetion, Equal Terms, and Exclusion tnd Lins proviso the Ris Land Us an naan Pass A of 200 RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000ce(0,(6\1D,(0)2),(0)@), the Fair Housing Act, 2 US.C. § 3604, the Free Exerelse Clause of the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, New Jersey common law ard the New | Jersey Law Against Diserimination, NJ. Stet, Ann. § 10:5-12. (he “Complain”) to vse certain real prolerty located at 2001 Church Road, Toms River, New Jersey (the “Subject Property") as ‘4 Chaba house! and it appearing thatthe Township of Toms River (the “Township” issued 1A "Chabad house” isa residence for a rabbi and his family who are affiliated withthe Chebad-Lubavitch movement within Chassidic Jewish tradition, and who engage in certaincase! :16-cv-01598-FLWALHG Document 21 Filed 02/05/18 Page 2 of 5 PagelO: 141 ‘vetious municipal violation tickets agains the Plaintiffs based on their use ofthe subject property 1s Chabid house; and ‘further appearing thatthe Plaintiffs requested thatthe Township determine thatthe wie of the subject property as a Chabad house is permitted, and thatthe Township didnot respond > such requést but stated that a variance was required to permit suc use; and Ik farther appearing that Platts applied tothe Defendant Zoning Board of Adjustmert of the Township ("BOA") (together withthe Township, “Defendans") for an interpretation tht the use of the subject property asa Chabad house was permitted; and Wifurher appeaving that, ater heaving, the BOA ultimately denied the Plains” applicatt; and tefurther appearing that Plaintiffs made application to this Court challenging the| etermisition of the BOA and the Township's zoning ordinances excluding the Plainifs® proposed religious use on the subject property and seeking to immediately permit the ws ofthe ssubjeot property as a Chabad house; TEeSurther eppeating thatthe Defendant Zoning Board of Adjustment ofthe Township of ‘Toms River enswored the Plaintiffs’ Complaint on June 29, 2016; and It'turther appearing thatthe Defendant Township answered the Plaintiffs! Complaint on July 11,4016; and “the Court having consdered the pleadings submited, 118 on this 5" aay of fey, 18, ORDERED, ADIUDGED and DECREED as follows: ? ‘eligionspbservanccs with other individuals et that location including Sabbath services, mals, religious clases, snd Hebrew school classes, jcase| ‘16-cv-01599-FLW-LMG Document 21, Filed 02/05/18 Page 3 of § PagelD: 142 1, This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter af this aetion pursuant to 28 USC. § 1331,28 US.C. § 1367, nd 42 US.C. § 2000ce-2. 2, The Courthas personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. 3. The Plint use of the Property will affect intersete commerce, 44, Venues proper inthis District. 5, ‘The parties waive the entry of findings of fact and eencusions of law under Rules ‘52.and 65 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6} The BOA’s decision denying Pl appeal ofthe application to use the subject property as a Chabed house is determined to be a violation of RLUIPA, the Fair Housing Act, 42 USC. §:3604, the Free Exe Clouse ofthe Fist Amendinet aud Equal Protetion Clause of {he Fourenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 7; ‘The Defendants are hereby enjoined from preventing Plain frm operating the subjetplopery as «Chabad house ube othe contons sted below. a ‘The Defendants ae further enjoined from taking any zoning, building code, of other enféreementaeton agninst the Plainlffs based on the Plsintf use ofthe subject property 1s @ Chabad house, subject tothe conditions listed below. 9: The Plaintiffs’ use of the subject property will be subject to the following conditions: ‘5g, Thete will be a maximum of 35 individuals for events held et the Subject Property, Additionally, there willbe a limit of 49 people atthe Subject # Property for six specific holidays per year which are the following: Sukkot, Simchas Torah, PeseclyPassover, Purim, Lag bfomer, and! Shavuotcase AG-cv-01599-FLW-LHG Document 21 Filed 02/05/18 Page 4 of 5 PagelD: 143 b 10, The Township is ordered to dismiss eny and all soning era building eit issued by the Township aginst the Plaintiffs upon enty ofthis Orr, ineluding, but not limited we: ‘The limits in paragraph (a) above, do not include family members, nor do ‘hey include tamil events held at the Subject Property. vents at the Subjest Property that exceed the limits set forth in para (@) shove willbe held oft, Pints wil inform any guests of the Chabad house thet ther is no itking tobe allowed on Church Roe ‘sign will be permite onthe Subject Property forthe Chabad and such} sign shall be compliant with the existing but ordinance or signage in the ‘Township ordinances. Violation 1507-9C-009742 Issued agains! Chabad Jewish Center on| tonsn¢ Violation 1507-$C-009744 Issued agpins: Chabad Jewish Center on ronena Violation 1507-SC-009746 Issued agnins: Chabad Jewish Center on! toner Violation 1507-80-009748 Tesued against Cinbad Jewish Center to914 ‘Violation 1507-SC-009743 Issued agaist Noshe Gourre on 1029/14 Violation 1507-8C-009745 Iosued against Nosbe Gourrieon 1029/14 Violation 1507-SC-009747 Issued against Moshe Gourarie on 10/25/14case :16-cv-01599-FLW-LHG Document 21 Filed 02/05/18 Page S of 5 PagelD: 144 1h, Violation 1507-SC-009749 Issued against Moshe Gourerie on 10/29/14 4, Violation V-150037S issued against Chabad Jowish Center af Toms River on 12/18/15 ‘Violation V-1500376 issued aguinst Chabad Jewish Center of Toms Rivet : on 12/18/15 11, The Defendants shall pay the Plaimffs the emount of One hundred twenty-two ‘thousand ($122,500.00) and five hundeed dollars upon enty of thie Order for Judgment for damages and attorney's fees sought by Plaintiff 12, The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action fo enforce the tems of this Order and resolve any disputes arising under this Onder. yay, ‘exrrene as 5 dy ofS, 2018, Honorable Freda L, Wolfson, USDJ. Se