Jewish group sues Cambridge after zoning board rejects its plans to enlarge its Harvard Square home

Lubavitch of Cambridge is alleging subterfuge by two Board of Zoning Appeals members for its failure to gain the variance it needs to enlarge its center in Harvard Square, in a suit filed today in federal court.

The orthodox group says that, in any case, the zoning board vote against the variance is a violation of its First Amendment rights and a federal law that grants religious buildings specific protection from anti-religious bias in local zoning cases.

The zoning board actually approved the group's plans to connect two of the three buildings at its center - which would have meant exceeding the maximum "floor-area ratio" allowed by the site's zoning - by a 3-2 vote. But the request for a variance to exceed that required 4 votes, and that is part of the Lubavitcher's argument in their case, filed in US District Court in Boston:

[T]wo BZA members rigged the administrative process to ensure that Plaintiff's application would never be granted. Their scheme was simple: Knowing that only two opposing votes were required to tank Chabad's application, BZA Chairman Jim Monteverde and BZA Associate Member Carol Agate - a vocal opponent of Chabad's application - ensured that Ms. Agate would sit (and therefore vote) on Chabad's case. Of the 11 cases heard at the May 9 and June 20 sessions, Ms. Agate sat for only one of them - Chabad's. And in order to sit, Ms. Agate actually replaced one of the members of the hearing's panel. No explanation was provided for this mysterious substitution.

Defendants' scheme worked perfectly. Despite three BZA members, a majority of the panel, concluding that Chabad's plans would benefit to the community and should have been afforded deference as required by federal civil rights laws, Chairman Montverde and Ms. Agate disregarded Chabad's warnings and the apparent but hidden legal advice of City lawyers and voted against Chabad's proposal.

Lubavitch says its new floor-area ratio would be no different than that of nearby Christian facilities and alleges the opposition is rooted in anti-Semitism:

In denying Chabad's application, BZA and, specifically, the two BZA members who voted "no," turned a blind eye to the needs of the Cambridge Jewish community. These individuals willfully disregarded Chabad's civil rights, even openly conceding that they were not "equipped" to apply their clear statutory and constitutional obligations. Not only did they succumb to anti-religious opposition from Chabad's opponents, their statements on the record reveal their personal discriminatory intent. ...

Defendants had a clear duty to consider Chabad's civil rights under RLUIPA [Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act], yet two of its members brazenly refused to do so. Defendants are in clear violation of RLUIPA, as they have substantially burdened Chabad and its congregants' religious practice, treated Chabad differently from both religious and non-religious institutions, and effectively excluded Judaism from the neighborhood. By discriminating against Judaism and restricting Chabad's religious rights, Defendants have also violated the U.S. and Massachusetts Constitutions, and other civil rights laws.

Another Lubavitch group is currently engaged in a battle with South Brookline residents over its plans to expand.

The group says none of the current three buildings it owns are large enough to house all the people who now come for Sabbath services and meals and that connecting two of the buildings would not only allow that, and construction of a ritual bath used by orthodox Jews, but would let them practice their faith in safety. The complaint noted the 2019 arson fires at Chabad rabbis' homes in Arlington and Needham, allegedly set by a now dead Quincy Nazi, and the 2021 stabbing of a Chabad rabbi in Brighton, along with more recent events:

Chabad’s need for expansion is urgent. Not only is the space necessary for Chabad and its congregants to have unified communal services, Jews all over Cambridge desperately need one place to practice their religion safely, away from the antisemitic environment that surrounds them.

The complaint seeks a court order mandating the group be allowed to build its extension plus damages and attorneys' fees.