8 10 101 https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/b59004af5aa9aea88d68179568b2a590.jpg a7709842fcdd9acb4613461fe30e10e9 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Illinois Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. A mosque operating out of a former school building in the Village of Berkeley, IL wanted to build a 13,000-square-foot addition to its Center, including a dome and minaret. Additionally, the mosque planned to renovate the exterior of the building. The Albanian-American Islamic Center had been operating continuously on the property since 1982. In 2001, the property was rezoned as a business district which required the Center to apply for an exception to construct the expansion. After more than 3.5 years of public opposition and permit denials, the DOJ launched an investigation. The investigation was closed when the Village approved the project in March 2008. Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. Il_03 Location The location of the interview Berkeley, IL Date 2004-2008 Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 5825 Charles Rd, Berkeley, IL 60163 Plus Code Enter the plus code for the location, if it is available. V3QP+M6 Berkeley, Illinois Proposed Project mosque expansion Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="https://www.facebook.com/XHAMIJASHQIP/">Albanian-American Islamic Center</a> Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance administrative denial; public campaign Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications approved (after DOJ investigation) Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. DOJ Closes RLUIPA Investigation After Illinois Village Allows Mosque Expansion* On April 4, 2008, the Civil Rights Division notified the Village of Berkeley, Illinois that it was closing its investigation into whether the Village had violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by refusing to allow the Albanian Islamic Center’s 13,000-square foot expansion plan. The Division closed its investigation after the Village approved resolutions on March 18 permitting the mosque, which had operated on the site for more than 25 years, to go forward with its expansion. In 1982, the Albanian Islamic Center purchased a 4.5 acre parcel of land housing a former school building on St. Charles Road, in Berkeley, Illinois and began holding religious services there. The Center has operated continuously at that location since then. The Center is the only Islamic institution in the Village of Berkeley and the only mosque in Illinois that aims specifically to serve Albanian immigrants. In 2001, the land on which the mosque sits was rezoned as a business district, which permits only tax-generating businesses and residences built on top of ground-floor businesses. Existing uses were grandfathered, but alterations to existing uses were prohibited unless an exception was given. Between January 2004 and May 2007, the Center made four applications to construct an approximately 13,000-square-foot addition to the Center, including a minaret. The Center proposed to expand to accommodate its growing membership and to give the Center a more mosque-like appearance. The Center’s religious services were often crowded with congregants spilling out into the halls. The Village denied all four of these applications. On August 3, 2007, the United States notified the Village that it had opened an investigation into whether the Village had violated RLUIPA by denying the Center’s applications for permission to expand. On March 18, the Village approved the Center’s proposed expansion and the Division closed its investigation in response. *Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. (2008, March/April). DOJ closes RLUIPA investigation after Illinois village allows mosque expansion. Religious Freedom in Focus, 32. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.justice.gov/crt/religious-freedom-focus-volume-32">https://www.justice.gov/crt/religious-freedom-focus-volume-32</a>. Last Updated Date revised. June 27, 2020 Year Year the case began. 2004 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Berkeley, IL Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. IL_03, occurring in Berkeley, IL, 60163 from 2004 to 2008 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stewart Zelnick Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University Approved Built DOJ Expansion Planning and Zoning https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/0ec8f473a53cbd1fa01ee78d331c47ac.jpg 0a5941886c6e74b2cc371b56b96de9bf Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michigan Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. In 2014, some American Islamic Community Center (AICC) board members purchased a plot of land just off of 15 Mile Road in Sterling Heights, Michigan. In June of 2015, the AICC submitted a special approval land use (SALU) request to build a mosque on this land. In August of 2015, the Sterling Heights Planning Commission initially reviewed the SALU request. Shortly after this, residents began to protest the mosque citing zoning concerns, as the surrounding area was single-family homes. The request was then revised, but residents continued to protest the mosque, now blatantly including Islamophobia remarks. Following these protests, the mayor of Sterling Heights publicly announced his opposition to the mosque. In September, the Sterling Heights Planning Commission voted unanimously (9-0) to deny the mosque’s permit. In August of 2016, the AICC sued the Sterling Heights Planning Commission, alleging that a denial of the mosque infringed upon their First Amendment rights. In response to this suit, the Sterling Heights Planning Commission denied any bias against the Muslim community. Two days later, however, it was revealed that a commissioner on the board made Islamophobic remarks on his Facebook page. In December of 2016, the DOJ also filed a suit against the Sterling Heights Planning Commission, alleging the board violated the 2000 RLUIPA law. In February of 2017, the planning commission voted to settle these suits against them, allowing the mosque to be built. In March of that same year, a counter-suit was filed by the American Freedom Law Center, alleging that residents who attended the settlement meeting had their 1A rights violated. In June of 2017, a federal judge rejected the injunction against the mosque (brought on as a result of the counter-suit). In August of 2018, a judge ruled in favor of the city’s settlement and the AFLC appealed the ruling in a Cincinnati Circuit Court. In August of 2019, the court ruled in favor of the city. Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. Mi_06 Location The location of the interview Sterling Heights, MI Date 2015-2019 Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 5025 15 Mile Rd, Sterling Heights, MI 48310 Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="https://www.aiccmi.com/">American Islamic Community Center</a> Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance administrative denial; public campaign; bias-related incident; public speech; legal campaign Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications approved (with restrictions; settlement after initial denial and DOJ lawsuit) References Enter list of sources cited using the proper format. <ul><li>Cook, Jameson. (2019, August 23). City of Sterling Heights, prospective mosque prevail in federal appeals court ruling. The Macomb Daily. Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.</li> <li>Court rules in favor of city allowing mosque to be built. (2019, August 16). Associated Press: US News Online. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Czarnik, Eric. (2015, August 12). Planners to hear request on proposed mosque. Sterling Heights Sentry . Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Dalton, Daniel. (2017, February 21). A RLUIPA win: The American Islamic Community Center will build a mosque in Sterling Heights, Michigan. Dalton and Tomich: Attorneys for Land Use. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.attorneysforlanduse.com/a-rluipa-win-the-american-islamic-community-center-will-build-a-mosque-in-sterling-heights-michigan"> https://www.attorneysforlanduse.com/a-rluipa-win-the-american-islamic-community-center-will-build-a-mosque-in-sterling-heights-michigan</a>. </li> <li>Delaney, Sean. (2015, August 22). Sterling Heights planners delay vote on controversial mosque site. The Macomb Daily. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Felton, Ryan. (2016, December 15). Justice department sues Michigan city over denial of proposed mosque. The Guardian. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/us-justice-department-mosque-michigan-sterling-heights?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other"> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/us-justice-department-mosque-michigan-sterling-heights?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other</a>.</li> <li>Fournier, Holly and Mark Hicks. (2017, February 22.). U.S. Atty: ‘Proud’ of mosque settlement. The Detroit News. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2017/02/22/sterling-heights-oks-settlement-mosque-lawsuits/98238840/">https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2017/02/22/sterling-heights-oks-settlement-mosque-lawsuits/98238840</a>. </li> <li>Harb, Ali. (2016, August 10). Muslim center sues Sterling Heights over denying mosque. The Arab American News. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Harb, Ali. (2016, August 18). Planning commissioner made anti-Muslim posts before denying mosque. The Arab American News. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Hicks, Mark. (2017, March 14). Sterling Heights sued over mosque case settlement. The Detroit News. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2017/03/14/sterling-heights-sued-mosque-case-settlement/99152904"> https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2017/03/14/sterling-heights-sued-mosque-case-settlement/99152904</a>. </li> <li>Hijazi, Samer. (2015, September 3). Sterling Heights mosque controversy spills across Chaldean and Muslim communities. The Arab American News. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Hijazi, Samer. (2015, September 10). Sterling Heights rejects mosque proposal amid escalating tensions. The Arab American News. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Hohmann, Leo. (2019, May 3). Mayor sides with Muslims in mega-mosque battle that divides community. TUW Media. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.theunitedwest.org/2019/05/03/mayor-sides-with-muslims-in-mega-mosque-battle-that-divides-community"> https://www.theunitedwest.org/2019/05/03/mayor-sides-with-muslims-in-mega-mosque-battle-that-divides-community</a>.</li> <li>Hohmann, Leo. (2018, August 1). ‘Ultimate form of civilization jihad’ planned for Michigan city: Iraqi-Christian refugees on edge after learning of mosque ‘conversion’ project. Frontpage Magazine. Retrieved from <a href="https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/ultimate-form-civilization-jihad-planned-michigan-leo-hohman">https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/ultimate-form-civilization-jihad-planned-michigan-leo-hohman</a>.</li> <li>Hotts, Mitch. (2017, February 20). Sterling Heights council to vote on mosque lawsuit settlements. The Macomb Daily. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Hundreds of Sterling Heights residents turn out to protest Mosque. (2015, August 29). The Arab American News. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Judge rules in favor of city allowing mosque to be built. (2018, August 1). Associated Press State Wire: Michigan. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Justice Department files lawsuit against Sterling Heights for mosque rejection. (2016, December 15). The Arab American News. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Le Miere, Jason. (2017, March 19). Christian Iraqi immigrants protest mosque construction because of ISIS violence. Newsweek. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/christian-immigrants-mosque-muslim-isis-570004"> https://www.newsweek.com/christian-immigrants-mosque-muslim-isis-570004</a>. </li> <li>Ramirez, Charles E. (2019, August 15). Court sides with Sterling Hts. in appeal of mosque challenge. The Detroit News. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2019/08/15/court-sides-sterling-hts-in-mosque-challenge/2017723001"> https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2019/08/15/court-sides-sterling-hts-in-mosque-challenge/2017723001</a>. </li> <li>Snell, Robert. (2015, September 11). Sterling Hts. panel rejects proposed mosque - Planning commission votes 9-0 unanimously. The Detroit News. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Staff Writer. (2015, September 16). Mosque issue will not come before Sterling Heights council. The Daily Tribune. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Staff Writer. (2017, July 2). Judge rejects injunction against Sterling Heights mosque. The Macomb Daily. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Staff Writer. (2019, December 16). American city’s ban on criticism of Islam headed for Supreme review. WorldNetDaily. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Victor, Daniel. (2017, February 22). Muslim group wins right to build mosque in Michigan city. The New York Times. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/michigan-mosque-approved.html"> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/michigan-mosque-approved.html</a>.</li> </ul> Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. In a meeting on August 13, 2015, the planning commission for the city of Sterling Heights heard a proposed request for a special approval land use (SALU) to build a mosque for about 325 worshippers along 15 Mile Road. The SALU applicant, Jaafar Chehab, represented the American Islamic Community Center (AICC) in a project to build a house of worship on five adjoining lots in an area that was zoned for single-family homes. A staff report from the City’s Planning Office recommended the Planning Commission approve AICC’s SALU application because it met the city’s zoning ordinance conditions. After a total of 50 residents had spoken against the mosque plan--with only 7 speaking in support--the planning commission voted 6-1 to postpone the decision and further review the case before its next scheduled meeting on September 10 (Felton, 2016). Local news outlets reported that after the initial planning commission meeting, residents began to hold street protests. Protesters included members of the local Chaldean community, a group of Iraqi Christians, who had migrated to Sterling Heights in significant numbers because of the religious and ethnic persecution suffered following the deterioration of security conditions in the wake of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Residents lined 15 Mile Road with crosses, American flags, and signs that said “Wrong Place” and “No Mosque” (Hundreds of Sterling Heights residents turn out, 2015). Petitions circulated urging city planners to deny the special land use provision for the mosque. Residents voiced similar concerns about traffic, noise, and overflow parking at the August 18 meeting of the city council (Delaney, 2015). In addition to lawful complaints, Islamophobic comments could be heard as well. The protests against the mosque project overlapped with the local election season during which the mosque project became a wedge issue. Mayor Michael Taylor, who found himself in a contested re-election campaign, made contradictory remarks. “"My heart breaks for the Chaldeans in Iraq and throughout the world who are being terrorized by Islamic terrorists," Taylor wrote on his Facebook page. "I will do everything in my power to protect, support and defend the Chaldean population in Sterling Heights. I have nothing to do with the mosque and don’t want it built there"” (Hijazi, 2015, September 3). The post was later deleted and the mayor sought to clarify that his opposition was based solely on concerns over zoning issues (ibid.). Following these protests, the planning commission denied the Muslim community’s SALU application in a unanimous 9-0 vote at a meeting on September 10, 2015 while protesters rallied in front of city hall (Snell, 2015). After the vote, comments from residents included comparisons of ISIS and boos to the Muslim leaders (ibid.). After this denial, the Sterling Heights City Council refused to review the mosque’s petition stating that final authority to approve SALU applications lay with the city’s planning commission (“Mosque Issue,” 2015)). On August 10, 2016, the American Islamic Community Center filed a complaint under RLUIPA against the Sterling Heights Planning Commission. Nearly a week later on August 16, the Sterling Heights Planning Commission publicly denied any bias against the community. The city issued a statement that “Sterling Heights is an inclusive community and welcomes diversity through its many programs and events” (Terry, 2016). Two days after this public statement, however, it was revealed that Sterling Heights Planning Commissioner Jeff Norgrove had made anti-Muslim comments via a Facebook post (Harb, 2016). In December of 2016, the Department of Justice filed a suit against the Sterling Heights Planning Commission, alleging the commission had violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The complaint alleged the city had discriminated against the Muslim community on the basis of religon. Moreover, the DOJ argued that the reasons the city had given for its denial of the application, such as a concern over the height of the mosque’s spires, had imposed an unnecessary burden on AICC’s religious exercise (Hicks, 2017).. At a contentious public meeting on February 21, 2017, the Sterling Heights City Council voted to settle the suits and to enter into a federal consent decree that would allow the mosque to be built (Hotts, M.). Although the full terms of the settlement were not made public, representatives of AICC and U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade stated at a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g00ettRfd8">joint press conference</a> the morning after the city council meeting that issues over parking and noise had been resolved. The AICC also had agreed to reduce the height of the spires from 66 to 61 ft. The settlement of the DOJ case did not include monetary payments but the city agreed to pay $350,000 toward its insurance deductible to offset costs AICC had incurred for its suit against the city. Under the terms of the settlement the city did not admit to any wrongdoing but was required to revisit its nondiscrimination policies and agree to RLUIPA training (Fournier and Hicks, 2017). The tumultuous events at the city council meeting of February 21 formed the basis of a lawsuit against the City of Sterling Heights by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) seeking to invalidate the settlement. Following shouts of “terrorist” and repeated interruptions by members of the public, the city council had restricted public comments and removed one resident from the room (Victor, 2017). The AFLC’s lawsuit was filed on behalf of several Sterling Heights residents, including the aforementioned City Planning Commissioner Jeff Norgrove. It included allegations that the city had violated the Equal Protection Act, the Open Meetings Act, and citizens’ First Amendment rights. AFLC also filed an injunction seeking to halt construction. “Regardless of Defendants’ purpose for entering into the Consent Judgment and for the Mayor’s actions at the City Council meeting, the effect of such actions conveys a message of approval of Islam,” the complaint read. “A reasonable observer would conclude that this favors the adherents of Islam over those who are not adherents of Islam” (Youkhana v. City of Sterling Heights [ED MI, filed 3/13/2017]). In late June, a federal judge rejected the injunction against the mosque (“Judge Rejects Injunction,” 2017) and, more than a year later in August of 2018, a federal judge ruled in favor of the city (“Judge Rules in Favor of City,” 2018). The AFLC’s appeal to the Sixth U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati was unanimously dismissed by a three-judge panel in August of 2019. Siding with the city, the ruling affirmed that the city council’s restrictions on comments regarding religion to issues in which religion is relevant to zoning considerations such as potential noise disturbance from amplified calls to prayer had not infringed on residents’ constitutional rights (Ramirez, 2019). The <a href="https://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/case/youkhanna-v-city-of-sterling-heights/">AFLC’s website</a> indicates that the group filed a petition for a rehearing en banc in August 2019 but does not offer any updates on the current status. Similar, the WorldNetDaily, an extremist group according to the <a href="https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/worldnetdaily">Southern Poverty Law Center</a>, reported that the case would eventually be taken up by the Supreme Court, but no such verification has been possible thus far (“American City’s Ban on Criticism of Islam,” 2019). Year Year the case began. 2015 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Sterling Heights, MI Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. MI_06, occurring in Sterling Heights, MI, 48310 from 2015 to 2019 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stewart Zelnick Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University DOJ Lawsuit (RLUIPA) https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/4d292540f81abad7b2bc389dd918a259.jpg 1ea44a05dc58bf12cb1599d33603da01 https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/f95db2566db8e2f72960365b2bc150d1.jpg 228a312491fe908e70b63f6101e46c70 https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/7a043a927b90031b64df1622bbf950ed.jpg 2e27fd5802a0e6b0eded48216f3512be https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/7855bb12fd80b5ca66c4d5b7eba5eb26.jpg 24ec459b89ec86fcd4a93bece2987054 https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/f0c572e105250734ad196582fd75b0c2.jpg e35ce498567bb24133d631c9ab201453 https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/e271ff4a2f82b2aa2939e34ad65c9480.JPG f73bea7c3575e7afa2fecd0f335a2b89 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michigan Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Plus Code Enter the plus code for the location, if it is available. 68HQ+XJ Pittsfield Charter Twp, Michigan Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. Mi_05 Location The location of the interview Pittsfield, MI Date 2011-2016 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. The Michigan Islamic Academy (MIA) seeks to build a school on a vacant 26.7-acre tract of land in Pittsfield Township. The parcel is part of a planned unit development requiring a rezoning application. After a series of heavily attended meetings, the Tonwship’s Planning Commission recommends denial of the application based primarily on concerns over increased traffic. Pittsfield’s Board of Trustees unanimously votes to deny MIA’s application in October 2011. In February 2012, CAIR-MI sues Pittsfield Township on behalf of MIA in federal court. The lawsuit plays out over the next four and one-half years. In October 2015, the Department of Justice files a separate RLUIPA lawsuit against the Township. Both cases are settled in 2016 allowing the project to proceed. The Township is also ordered to pay MIA $1.7 million in damages and legal fees. Proposed Project school (initial proposal also include a future community center and mosque) Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="http://mca-a2.org">Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor</a> (MCA); <a href="http://mca-a2.org/mia">Michigan Islamic Academy</a> (MIA) Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance administrative denial; public campaign; legal campaign Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications approved (after legal settlement) Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. The Michigan Islamic Academy (MIA), a private Islamic school in Ann Arbor, had outgrown its facilities. Established in 1985 as a subsidiary organization of the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor (MCA), MIA shared facilities with MCA’s community center and mosque on Ann Arbor’s Plymouth Road. By 2008, the buildings had become inadequate to deliver the school’s curriculum and MIA began exploring options to branch out. In addition to expanding its existing facilities in Ann Arbor—a plan the City of Ann Arbor approved in May 2010 (Zemke, 2010, May 5)—MIA found a suitable location for a new school building in the nearby Pittsfield Township. The property required a rezoning application. The RLUIPA case that followed the Township’s denial of MIA’s rezoning application included not only MIA’s private lawsuit but also a separate DOJ complaint against the Township as well as a legal intervention by the American Freedom Law Center. In September 2016, after four and one-half years, the parties entered a consent order that allowed the project to proceed. It also required the Township to pay MIA $1.7 million in fees and damages--one of the largest settlement sums in an RLUIPA case at the time. In their search for a suitable property board members had identified an undeveloped residential tract of 26.7 acres in nearby Pittsfield Township The parcel was part of the residential Silverleaf Planned Unit Development (PUD). Although the Township’s master plan permitted schools in residential zones, the PUD made a rezoning application necessary (Gardner, 2011, January 12). MIA representatives informed Township officials about the intended use and received verbal assurance that the property could be rezoned (Perkins, 2011, March 31). In September 2010, MCA community members purchased the property for around $250,000 at foreclosure and continued to work with Township planners on submitting a rezoning application. MIA submitted its petition (RZ 10-04) for one-story school building to the Planning Commission in early December 2010. The submitted plans included plans for a future community center and prayer hall in addition to the educational facilities for the school. The Planning Commission met on January 13, 2011 to discuss the application. Representatives from MIA addressed concerns brought forth by an outside consultant for the Township and signaled their willingness to accept further modifications and conditions. Commissioners, however, voted unanimously in favor of having planning staff draft a resolution for denial that could be discussed and voted on at a subsequent Planning Commission meeting (Gardener, 2011, January 13). Although MIA’s project was not included on the formal agenda until August, several speakers addressed the project at subsequent Planning Commission meetings from the floor. At a heavily attended meeting on June 16, opponents presented the Planning Commission with a petition signed by 26 residents against the project. After controversial statements from the public that included negative comments on Muslim practices, the Planning Commission voted on a preliminary motion to deny MIA’s petition. About 125 residents attended the August 4 meeting when the Planning Commission formally took up MIA’s rezoning petition again and voted 3-2 in favor of the resolution for denial (Perkins, 2011, August 5). The vote came after a long public comment session that had lasted until 1:30 a.m. The Commission based its denial on the assessment that MIA did not fulfill 3 out of 11 required standards for rezoning of the PUD. Commissioners noted that MIA could not be considered a “small-scale school,” which had been a stipulation in the Township’s 2003 masterplan when MIA submitted its application, though the small-scale qualifier had been dropped from the subsequent masterplan in 2010. The Commission also cited expectations for an increase in traffic and expected noise and light disturbances from outdoor activities as further reasons for its denial. The Township’s Board of Trustees (BOT) followed the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial at its October 26 meeting. The BOT did not publicly deliberate the motion before it proceeded to vote unanimously for denial (Perkins, 2011, October 27). No public comments had been allowed during the meeting. Following the Township’s vote, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District confirmed that it was reviewing the denial as a potential RLUIPA violation (Brand-Williams, 2011, December 27). While the DOJ was still determining whether to start a formal investigation, CAIR-MI announced at a press conference in February 2012 that it had filed a federal lawsuit on MIA’s behalf against the Township. The case Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor and Vicinity v. Pittsfield Charter Township (E.D. Mich. 12-CV-10803) made it through the court system in several stages involving amendments to the original complaint as well as an intervention by the American Freedom Law Center which sought to “quash” MIA’s discovery demands against seven local residents. In a ruling from March 20, 2015 the court denied MIA’s complaint on the grounds that the group “lacked a legally cognizable property interest to sustain its claims” because it never itself had acquired the property but only received permission from the property owner to use it for its school (Seeman et al., 2015, April 10). Despite this denial based on Michigan state law, the court was careful to state that MIA could still assert the RLUIPA claim if it acquired a property interest or that the claim could be brought by another entity that had such an interest. On May 20, 2015 MIA officially acquired the property (Chaffee et al., 2015, November 1). The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a separate RLUIPA lawsuit against the Township. In United States of America v. Pittsfield Charter Township (E.D. Mich. October 26, 2015) the DOJ alleged that the Township had placed a substantial burden on MIA. The complaint specifically responded to the three required standards for rezoning the Planning Commission had used as basis for its recommendation for denial. “The stated failure to meet the three PUD criteria was without factual basis,” read the complaint (ibid., p. 11). The DOJ further charged that Commissioners had continued to raise concerns about potential problems stemming from a future community center on the site even though MIA had resubmitted revised drawings to the Commission that excluded the plan for a community center and prayer hall. Within a year of the DOJ’s RLUIPA complaint the court entered a consent order that required the Township to allow the project to proceed and to accept additional training, notice, and reporting requirements (“Justice Department and Pittsfield Charter Township Resolve Lawsuit,” 2016, September 29). The consent order was filed concurrently with a consent judgment in MIA’s lawsuit against the Township. The latter required Pittsfield to pay $1.7 million in damages and legal fees that had resulted from the delay in construction caused by the 2011 denial. In addition, CAIR-MI disclosed that the settlement would allow MIA “to build a 70,000 square foot Islamic school, a residential development consisting of 22 duplex units and three single family homes, and a park” (“Islamic School Awarded $1.7 Million in Settlement,” 2016, September 29). Neither consent order required the Township to admit any wrongdoing or liability. As of June 2020, no land had been broken on the property. References Enter list of sources cited using the proper format. <ul><li>Arndt, Danielle. (2012, February 22). American-Islamic council: Pittsfield Township's blocking of Islamic school is 'neo-Jim Crow'. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Brand-Williams, Oralanda. (2011, December 27). Rejected Muslim school bid reviewed - Group: Institution's rights violated in Pittsfield Twp. The Detroit News: Web Edition Articles, A3. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>CAIR-MI asks DOJ to probe bias in decision on Islamic School. (2011, July 26). PR Newswire. Retrieved from <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com">https://infoweb-newsbank-com</a>.</li> <li>Chaffee, K., Seeman, E., & Merriam, D. (2015, April 10). Round two: DOJ sues Pittsfield Charter Township. Robinson+Cole. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.rluipa-defense.com/2015/11/round-two-doj-sues-pittsfield-charter-township">https://www.rluipa-defense.com/2015/11/round-two-doj-sues-pittsfield-charter-township</a>. </li> <li>Gardner, Paul. (2011, January 12). Michigan Islamic Academy seeks to build new school on Ellsworth in Pittsfield Township. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Gardner, Paul. (2011, January 13). 'Not a lot of support' for Michigan Islamic Academy in Pittsfield Township. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Islamic school awarded $1.7 million in settlement of CAIR-MI suit against Michigan township. (2016, September 29). PR Newswire. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Justice Department and Pittsfield Charter Township resolve lawsuit. (2016, September 29). Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-pittsfield-charter-township-resolve-lawsuit-over-denial-zoning">https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-and-pittsfield-charter-township-resolve-lawsuit-over-denial-zoning</a>. </li> <li>Perkins, Tom. (2011, October 27). Michigan Islamic Academy vows litigation after Pittsfield Township rejects rezoning for school. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Perkins, Tom. (2011, August 5). Islamic school rezoning rejected by Pittsfield Township Planning Commission. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Perkins, Tom. (2011, March 31). Michigan Islamic Academy officials make case for new Pittsfield Township school. AnnArbor.com. Retrieved from https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Seeman, E., Chaffee, K. & Merriam, D. (2015, April 10). Court finds Muslim group lacks property interest and tosses RLUPA suit; Pittsfield Charter Township wins. Robinson+Cole. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.rluipa-defense.com/2015/04/court-finds-muslim-group-lacks-property-interest-and-tosses-rluipa-suit-pittsfield-charter-township-wins">https://www.rluipa-defense.com/2015/04/court-finds-muslim-group-lacks-property-interest-and-tosses-rluipa-suit-pittsfield-charter-township-wins</a>. </li> <li>Zemke, Jon (2010, May 5). Ann Arbor green lights Michigan Islamic Academy expansion. Concentrate. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.secondwavemedia.com/concentrate/devnews/michiganislamicacademyannarbor0102.aspx">https://www.secondwavemedia.com/concentrate/devnews/michiganislamicacademyannarbor0102.aspx</a>. </li> </ul> Last Updated Date revised. June 23, 2020 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Pittsfield, MI Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. MI_05, occurring in Pittsfield, MI, 48105 from 2011 to 2016 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stewart Zelnick Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/a57d30efe01da9485b73be02e7e67926.jpg 730aa3acbbd02c650db737459f5d5b6a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Michigan Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. An Islamic group named Adam explored several properties over a five year span in order to develop an Islamic center. The Zoning Board of Appeals for the city of Troy, Michigan denied the variances that Adam requested for their community center. As a result, the DOJ began an investigation into Troy’s zoning practices and filed a lawsuit against Troy. The Michigan division of CAIR also filed a lawsuit on behalf of Adam Both of these lawsuits are ongoing. Date 2018-cont. Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 3635 Rochester Road, Troy, MI 48083 Proposed Project Islamic center Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. Adam Community Center Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. Mi_08 Location The location of the interview Troy, MI Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance administrative denial Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications rejected (legal action ongoing) Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. The Adam Community Center (“Adam”) is a community of Sunni Muslims in Troy, Michigan. For seven years, the group has struggled to get their projects approved by the city. In 2013, a real estate company purchased a former restaurant and planned to develop it into a community center for Adam. At a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, however, city officials designated the proposed project as a “place of worship” and the seller of the property accepted a different offer (Troy BZA minutes 2013). In 2017, the Adam Community Center approached the City of Troy with a list of several different properties in order to be advised on which ones may be best suited for development. Allegedly, the city refused to assist Adam and advised them to look for properties in neighboring cities (United States if America v. City of Troy, Michigan). *A year later, Adam had entered a preliminary agreement to purchase their current property. In order to develop this property and use it as a place of worship, Adam requested variances at a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Unanimously, the Zoning Board of Appeals rejected Adam’s request for variances. The rejection of these variances caused the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to file a lawsuit on behalf of Adam in the Eastern District of Michigan. The complaint, which was filed in November of 2018, outlines numerous allegations of Troy’s discriminatory behavior, including an instance where Adam attempted to purchase an existing church, but residents of Troy learned about the purchase and brought in Christian investors to buy out the church from under Adam (Adam Community Center v. City of Troy). The lawsuit accuses Troy of violating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) on three counts: depriving Adam of their religious exercise by imposing a substantial burden, discrimination on the basis of religion, and imposing unequal restrictions against religious institutions (Adam Community Center v. City of Troy).* In response to this lawsuit, the City of Troy requested a dismissal, which was rejected by a federal judge. In 2019, the United States Department of Justice also filed a lawsuit against Troy. The suit outlines similar allegations against Troy, but only alleges that Troy violated RLUIPA on two counts: imposing a substantial burden on Adam and imposing unequal restrictions against religious institutions. The DOJ’s lawsuit makes no mention of discrimination on the basis of religion. This is likely because it is more difficult to prove religious discrimination in a court of law. Both lawsuits are still ongoing as of June 2020. Last Updated Date revised. July 2, 2020 Year Year the case began. 2018 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Troy, MI Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. MI_08, occurring in Troy, MI, 48083 from 2018 to present Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stewart Zelnick Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University DOJ Lawsuit (RLUIPA) https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/6249f0368c74ed42607be16e5e03897e.jpg d9ae4c74651cc4515a711d130b21b62d Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Florida Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. Fl_08 Location The location of the interview Orange County, FL Date February-April 2018 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. The Aisha Cultural Centers seeks to convert a landscaping warehouse into a community center to provide youth programs and social services. Planning staff recommends approval, but the county’s Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) votes to deny the center’s application for a special exception because of concern over a petition signed by residents in opposition to the planned center. The Board of County Commissioners does not follow the BZA’s recommendation and votes unanimously to approve the center’s application. Commissioners note that the opposition includes many members of the public not residing in the vicinity of the proposed site and that concerns over additional traffic and noise had been addressed. Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 1311 Hancock Lone Palm Rd, Orlando, FL 32828 Proposed Project The Aisha Cultural Center seeks to convert a landscaping warehouse into a community center to provide youth programs and social services. Although the zoning allows for religious land use, a special exception is required because the county’s future land use designation is not consistent with the underlying zoning. Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="http://aishacenter.com/">Aisha Cultural Center</a> Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance public campaign; administrative denial [initial] Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications The Board of County Commissioners does not follow the BZA’s recommendation for denial but instead votes unanimously to approve the application with eleven conditions that had been recommended by planning staff. The project is in the first phase of construction. Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. The Islamic nonprofit Aisha Cultural Center Inc. (ACC) has been offering religious, educational, and social activities to the East Orlando Muslim community at its location on South Alafaya Trail since 2014. In 2017, it purchased a former landscaping warehouse on the east side of Orange County to expand services such as youth programs and college prep tutoring. ACC applied for a special exception to allow a religious facility with ancillary uses, including worshipping, social services, evening gatherings, and SAT programs. The application also included a request for a variance to allow unpaved overflow parking. Although the property was zoned agricultural (A-2, farmland rural district), which allowed for religious land use, a special exception was required because the county’s future land use designation (low-medium density residential) was not consistent with the underlying A-2 zoning. Upon receiving ACC’s application, county planning staff sent out 85 notifications to residents in a 600-ft radius of the property for a community meeting on January 10, 2017, to explain the proposed project and answer questions. No members of the public attended the meeting. The Aisha Cultural Center’s application for a special exception was placed on the agenda for a regularly scheduled meeting of Orange County’s Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) on February 1, 2018. Meeting all code criteria, the proposal came to the BZA with a staff recommendation for approval. The attorney for ACC, Tara Tedrow, presented the proposal highlighting, among others, that Orange County Transportation Planning had determined the project would produce de minimis traffic impacts. Furthermore, previously, two other religious communities in the vicinity of the proposed site had been granted a special exception for their religious facilities. During the public comment section, no member of the public spoke up in support of the project. Opposition was represented foremost by Michael Johnson, to whom several other speakers yielded their time. Johnson was given six minutes to address the BZA. (Johnson stated he lived about six miles from the proposed site. However, the address he provided as his residence places him at least 22 miles from the site, according to GoogleMaps.) Before the meeting, the BZA had received 30 to 40 letters expressing opposition to the development. Johnson presented additional petitions to the BZA. Most of the concerns expressed on the petitions were related to the expectation of extra traffic and noise. At least one of the letters expressed Islamophobic sentiments reading, "Keep terrorism out – No to this political system. I don't want the troubles Europe has." The BZA determined that about 40 petitions had come from residents near the proposed site. Johnson also raised concern that the fundraising page on the ACC’s website had included references to additional plans such as a soccer field not included in the official application for the special exception. Concerns about alleged omissions were repeated in a subsequent presentation by Allen Korman, who indicated that he had worked with Johnson to collect the petitions from residents. Korman, who stated he lived about 8.5 miles from the subject property, charged that ACC had omitted activities such as communal Friday prayers and activities by the Aisha School that would lead to occupancy at the proposed site beyond the submitted capacity. ACC’s legal counsel Tedrow responded to comments clarifying that the proposed community center was a low-use facility to provide social and educational services. It would operate separately from the ACC’s property on Alafaya Trail, pictures of which had been shown in the presentations by Johnson and Korman. Tedrow specified further that ACC had worked with county staff and followed their advice when preparing a site plan that was consistent with the surrounding community's character and low-intensity development plans. In their subsequent deliberations, the BZA members expressed low concern over the impact on traffic and noise. Members also voiced that they were surprised by the interest and involvement of residents from outside the immediate vicinity. The unanimous vote to recommend denial of the application acknowledged that about 40 of the petitions in opposition to the project seemed to originate with residents who the project could directly impact. The Board of County Commissioners did not follow the BZA’s recommendation of denial but instead voted unanimously to approve the application for a special exception at its regular meeting on April 10, 2018. Information presented in support of the application included an additional traffic study ACC had performed on March 23. The survey result confirmed the de minimis traffic impacts found by Orange County Transportation Planning. The public comment period lasted about 60 minutes. During that period some of the speakers who had signed up to speak against the project ceded their time to Michael Johnson. Opponents cited arguments made earlier at the BZA meeting over traffic and noise. Different from the previous BZA meeting, however, the public comment section also included statements of support from several community members in attendance. Commissioners acknowledged that the project was consistent with county regulations and that the additional traffic study had eased any concern over adverse traffic impacts on the surrounding community. Orange County Mayor Teresa Jacob expressed surprise that many of the opponents did not live near the proposed site. “I can’t recall when all but one person who was opposed were from outside the area and many were from outside of the county,” the mayor said during deliberations. The BCC voted unanimously to approve the application with eleven conditions recommended by the planning staff. They added that the county’s traffic division would reassess traffic conditions every other year to make appropriate recommendations on whether traffic control would be required for future events at the site. The involvement of members of the public opposing the project even though they did not live close to the proposed site was a recurring matter of concern during the deliberations over ACC’s application. In the only available news coverage of the county commission’s meeting on April 10, Channel 9 reported that four residents living close to the site had told reporters they either had not heard anything about the project or thought the petition seemed deceptive. One resident who had signed a petition is quoted stating, “I was just kind of stronghanded into signing a petition I didn’t really know anything about. Pretty much the minute I asked for more information, they kind of walked away” (Seaborn, 2108). A member of ACC who lived in the community close to the site was said to have experienced similarly misleading tactics when Johnson and a partner were canvassing the community around the site for signatures against the project. Johnson had a history of involvement in opposition to building projects by the Muslim community in Orange County. In 2016 he was part of the opposition against a mosque proposed in the town of Windermere (Kerr, 2016). The proposed site was more than 30 miles from his stated residence in Seminole County, FL. References Kerr, Z. (2016, March 31). Developers introduce plans for mosque. Windermere Observer (Winter Garden, FL), p. 5. Retrieved from <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?%20p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/15CAEC12B5DC6420.">https://infoweb-newsbank-com</a>. Seabrook, L. (2018, April 10). ‘Keep terrorists out’: Residents write to commissioners in response to new Islamic center. ABC-9 WFTV. Retrieved from<a href="https://www.wftv.com/news/local/keep-terrorists-out-residents-write-to-commissioners-in-response-to-new-islamic-center/730348902"> www.wftv.com</a>. Last Updated Date revised. June 10, 2021 Year Year the case began. 2018 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Orange County, FL Description An account of the resource In April 2018, the Orange County Board of Commissioners votes to grant the Aisha Cultural Center permission for a special exception to convert a landscaping warehouse into a community center. Despite the planning staff’s recommendation for approval, the county’s Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) earlier had voted to deny the center’s request because of concern over a petition signed by residents in opposition to the planned center. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stewart Zelnick Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University Approved Community Center Public Campaign Under Construction https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/75778b4520841ac347cdce80f58b4df8.jpg a8bdf0b208d3fb0c30605dadef856d82 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Florida Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. FL_07 Location The location of the interview Port St. Lucie, FL Date February-April 2017 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. Residents protest at a commission meeting against a potential proposal for a mosque within the city of Port. St. Lucie. The Treasure Coast Islamic Society had created a GoFundMe project to help raise $200,000 to purchase a vacant storefront formerly occupied by the Church on the Rock to use as a mosque and weekend Islamic school. The seller did not accept the Muslim community’s purchase offer. By the time of the city commission meeting, the property had already come under contract and was later sold to a Haitian church. Residents, however, continued to mobilize on Facebook and spoke at the commission meeting to decry the possibility of a mosque in the city. Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 1481 SW Bougainvillea Ave, Port St. Lucie, FL 34953 Plus Code Enter the plus code for the location, if it is available. 7J74+WG Port St. Lucie, Florida Proposed Project The Muslim community seeks to use a vacant storefront formerly occupied by a church for use as mosque and weekend Islamic school. It does not require city approval. Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. Treasure Coast Islamic Society Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance public campaign; bias-related incident Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications The seller does not accept the Muslim community’s purchase offer and sells the property to a Haitian church. Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. Founded in late 2016, the Treasure Coast Islamic Society (TCIS) sought to purchase a building in the city of Port St. Lucie, FL to serve as a house of worship and a weekend Islamic school for local Muslim residents. It would have been the first mosque within the city limits. The Muslim community made an offer on a storefront building occupied by the Church on the Rock that had recently come up for sale. Although the offer was unsuccessful and the building soon came under contract by another Christian community, local opposition to the TCIS’s plan for a new masjid in Port St. Lucie had already been mobilized on social media between February and April in response to a GoFundMe campaign TCIS had created to raise funds to purchase the church property. Public opposition came to a head at a city commission meeting in late April. In anticipation of protests, city officials had increased the police presence at the meeting on April 24, 2017. Opponents speaking out before the city commission against a potential mosque expressed concerns about the anticipated level of noise from daily calls to prayer and expressed fear that the mosque would become a security threat. Some supporters of the local Muslim community attended the meeting but sharply anti-Muslim points of view dominated the public comment section. A local newspaper reported that few who spoke at the city commission meeting were residents of Port St. Lucie but had arrived from outside the city (Rodriguez 2017). Opponents’ statements raised suspicion of Muslims describing Islam as incompatible with and dangerous to America with statements such as, “We don’t need to hear five times a day their prayer. Their culture. You don’t do it here. We are American” (quoted in McRoberts 2017); “I think it’s a bad idea. I don’t think it should happen. We are a Christian nation, we always have been and that should be respected” (quoted in Buczyner 2017); and “Fifteen to 20 percent of their population seeks to destroy and kill you and me” (quoted in Rodriguez 2017). To raise the specter of extremist violence, speakers made reference to Omar Mateen who had attended the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce twenty miles north of Port St. Lucie. Mateen had committed the mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando the year before on June 12. City officials responded to the concerns expressed at the meeting by pointing out that the city had not received any official permitting request for a local mosque but that any such request would be treated in accordance with local zoning regulations that pertained to all houses of worship regardless of the specifics of an applicant’s religion. In the case of an application to operate a house of worship out of a vacant storefront with fewer than 3,000 square feet of space--as would have been the case with the building of the former Church on the Rock-- no approval would be required. In his remarks at the city commission meeting, Mayor Greg Oravec went beyond clarifying the city’s permitting process to remind opponents that constitutional rights are afforded to all citizens saying, “We don’t get to pick and choose which freedoms are afforded to our citizens, or to pick and choose among our citizens. We fight for them all” (quoted in McRoberts 2017). Public response to the city council meeting criticized the anti-Muslim statements made by opponents but generally lauded the city’s response to the controversy. A spokesperson for the Florida office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-FL) rejected opponents’ religious intolerance as a threat to the wider community (Rodriguez 2017), whereas the editorial board of The Stewart News gave the mayor a “thumbs-up” for his handling of the controversy and praised his public remarks that the rights and freedoms protected in the U.S. Constitution also applied to Muslim Americans (Thumbs up 2017). The members of the TCIS responded to the controversy with the commitment to continue their search for a suitable place for their community to meet and practice their religion (Byczyner 2017). Current data on mosques and Islamic centers in the area of St. Lucie County, however, suggests that the community has not yet realized its plan. The opposition to the plans of the Treasure Coast Islamic Society to open a mosque in Port St. Lucie occurred, as mentioned above, in the wake of the Pulse nightclub shooting in neighboring Orlando. The Islamic Center of Fort Pierce, which the shooter had attended, had been subject to threats and intimidation campaigns in 2016 (Broad 2016, June 17; Elliott 2016, June 27). An attack on an individual community member in front of the Islamic center was reported in July 2016 (Tishchenko 2016, July 3). The campaign against the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce culminated in an arson attack on September 12, 2016. The fire destroyed parts of the historic building that housed the Islamic center, formerly known as Dutton Memorial Church, and caused the community to relocate to a new property in Fort Pierce the following year. Anti-Muslim mobilization, however, was not a new phenomenon. The events in 2016 and 2017 had been preceded by other cases of opposition to Muslim building projects in St. Lucie County. Prior cases included local opposition to a proposed mosque in 2008 [FL_03] and a Muslim cemetery in 2013 [FL_05], both in White City. References <ul> <li>Buczyner, Michael. (2017, April 25). Religion rift in Port St. Lucie as Muslim group plans to build mosque. CBS-12 News. Retrieved from <a href="https://cbs12.com/news/local/religion-rift-in-port-st-lucie-as-muslim-group-plans-to-build-mosque">https://cbs12.com/news/local/religion-rift-in-port-st-lucie-as-muslim-group-plans- to-build-mosque</a>.</li> <li>McRoberts, Meghan. (2017, April 25). Rumored mosque in Port St. Lucie sparks controversy: City leaders say no plan to build mosque. NBC-5 WPTV. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.wptv.com/news/region-st-lucie-county/port-st-lucie/rumored-mosque-in-port-st-lucie-sparks-controversy-city-leaders-say-there-is-no-plan">https://www.wptv.com/news/region-st-lucie- county/port-st-lucie/rumored-mosque-in-port-st-lucie-sparks-controversy-city-leaders-say-there-is-no-plan</a>.</li> <li>Rodriguez, Nicole. (2017, April 26). Shaping our future - Church won’t be purchased by Muslim group. St. Lucie News Tribune. Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Rodriguez, Nicole. (2017, April 25). Potential mosque sparks debate - Concern voiced at PSL council meeting. St. Lucie News Tribune (Fort Pierce, FL). Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Rodriquez, Nicole. (2017, April 25). Port St. Lucie church won't be purchased by Muslim group for mosque. TCPalm. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/local/shaping-our-future/property-values/2017/04/25/port-st-lucie-church-wont-purchased-muslim-group-mosque/100878316">https://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/local/shaping-our-future/property-values/2017/04/ 25/port-st-lucie-church-wont-purchased-muslim-group-mosque/100878316</a>.</li> <li>Thumbs up - Port St. Lucie mayor gets it right on mosque. (2017, April 29). The Stuart News. Available from NewsBank: Access World News – Historical and Current: https://infoweb-newsbank-com.</li> <li>Westbury, Anthony. (2017, Apr 28). In mosque protest, we really showed our ugly side again. TCPalm. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.tcpalm.com/story/opinion/columnists/anthony-westbury/2017/04/28/anthony-westbury-mosque-protest-we-reallyshowed-our-ugly-side-again-video/100948524">https://www.tcpalm.com/story/opinion/columnists/anthony-westbury/2017/04/28/anthony- westbury-mosque-protest-we-reallyshowed-our-ugly-side-again-video/100948524</a>.</li> </ul> Last Updated Date revised. June 22, 2020 Year Year the case began. 2017 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Port St. Lucie, FL Description An account of the resource In late April 2017, residents protest at a city commission meeting against a potential proposal for a mosque by the Treasure Coast Islamic Society in the City of Port. St. Lucie. By the time of the city commission meeting, the property is already under contract to be sold to a Haitian church. Residents, however, continue to mobilize on Facebook and speak at the commission meeting to decry the possibility of a mosque in the city. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stewart Zelnick Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University Mosque Not Built Prior Church Use Public Campaign https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/b34eeb93547e9c598b29d2be90e1fa14.png ea528620159bfb47f4e09b04e0968baf Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Florida Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. Fl_06 Location The location of the interview Windermere, FL Date March-August 2016 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. Residents of Windermere, Florida push back against a planned mosque in a residential area along the northern shore of Lake Mabel. The project, a 6,900-square-foot mosque in Spanish architectural style, requires a special exception under Orange County’s zoning regulations. Opponents comment mostly on the impact the mosque would have on the area’s rural nature, but during information meetings about the planned project and at the meeting before the Orange County Board of Zoning Adjustments negative statements about Islam and mosques creep into the conversation as well. After more than two hours of presentations, public comment, and deliberations, the BAZ votes unanimously (5-0) to deny the Muslim community’s request for a special exception. Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 8806 Winter Garden Vineland Rd, Orlando, FL 32836 Plus Code Enter the plus code for the location, if it is available. CFP6+V5 Orlando, Florida Proposed Project The Muslim community submits plans for a 6,900-square-foot mosque in Spanish architectural style. The project requires a special exception under Orange County’s zoning regulations. Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. Windermere Religious Center Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications The BZA denies the Muslim community’s request for a special exeption. Following the denial, the Islamic Center of Orlando opens a prayer room (musholla) in a rental property at a different location in Windermere. Last Updated Date revised. June 3, 2021 Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. As in other metro areas around the country, the Muslim community’s growth in Orlando was prompting some Islamic centers to expand facilities and others to establish new houses of worship in underserved areas. In early 2016, a local Muslim group loosely affiliated with the Islamic Center of Orlando, which in the same year would seek permission from Orange County to expand its main facility on Ruby Lake Road (Baqureo, 2016), was planning to build a new mosque in a residential area along the northern shore of Lake Mabel. The Windermere Religious Center, a 6,900-square-foot mosque in Spanish architectural style, required a special exception under Orange County’s zoning regulations. After several public information sessions with subsequent revisions to the proposal, the Orange County Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) denied the Muslim community’s request for a special exception. The land for the Windermere Religious Center was zoned rural-county estate (R-CE), which allowed for houses of worship as special-exception use. The property was privately owned by a member of the local Muslim community, who wanted to donate the land to construct the mosque. Initial plans envisioned a structure that could accommodate up to 120 worshippers (Kerr 2016). At two public information meetings in March and July, the developer introduced the project emphasizing that “the applicant had worked hard to make the facility as aesthetically pleasing and screened as possible in [an] attempt to appease nearby residents” (Hendrix, 2016). The building consciously emulated the architectural style of the area’s upscale residential homes. It did not include visibly Islamicate elements such as a minaret or dome. Other changes to the initial plans that followed from concerns expressed at the information sessions included restrictions on lighting and noise (ibid.). Residents remained overwhelmingly opposed to the project. Concerns focused mostly on expected changes to the area’s rural character and on the mosque’s environmental impact. “Any large facility would take away from what makes the area a great place to live,” stated one local resident (“Residents Fight Mosque Plan,” 2016, March 11). At the two public information meetings with developers and county officials, residents reiterated that the project was out of place in a low-density residential area with single-family homes. The environmental impact of the development on wetlands and the lake’s water level was a matter of concern as well (Kerr, 2016, March 31). Although zoning issues were at the forefront of the debate, religious intolerance also appeared to be a motivating factor for some in the opposition. "[T]here were some indirect accusations of what Islam and what mosques have,” remarked Rasha Mubarak, a member of the Muslim community, after the first public meeting (“Proposed Mosque,” 2016, March 17). She continued, "Some people were very clear and precise with not wanting our religion there" (ibid.). The opposition included people from outside Windermere, such as Michael Johnson, with a history of opposing Muslim building projects in the Orlando metro area. In addition to presenting petitions he had collected against the mosque, Johnson spoke before the Board of Zoning Adjustments alleging the Muslim community deliberately had provided “erroneous and false information” in its application. After more than two hours of presentations, public comment, and deliberations, the Orange County Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) voted unanimously (5-0) to deny the Muslim community’s request for a special exception at its August 4 meeting. In introducing the case to the BZA, county staff had expressed concerns regarding the development primarily because it would introduce non-residential use into an otherwise residential area, which was rural in nature. Staff also noted that other religious institutions of comparable size had been approved in the same zone within a .5-mile radius but that these were closer to more densely populated areas. The Muslim community was represented by the engineering team who in their presentation sought to demonstrate that the application fulfilled the county’s six requirements for a special exception. Public comments were evenly split between those speaking in favor and against the project. Opponents underscored their apprehension over potential future growth and increased attendance by showing pictures of overflow parking at the Islamic Center of Orlando’s central mosque on Ruby Lake Road. At least one of the BZA members echoed the concern. It took the BZA fewer than ten minutes to deliberate after the public comment section had been closed. The motion to deny the special exception carried unanimously (5-0). “We want to be inclusive, but it’s not the right project for this particular lot,” explained the chair of the board as he closed the meeting. The denial came at a time of increased vulnerability of Muslim communities following the June 2016 nightclub shooting in Orlando. In the incident’s wake, numerous mosques in Florida, and across the U.S., were subject to <a href="http://cbs12.com/news/local/south-florida-mosques-receive-letters-calling-for-genocide">intimidation campaigns</a>. Other mosques and Islamic centers in Florida such as the <a href="https://usmc.ecdsomeka.org/items/show/18">Al-Amin Islamic Center</a> were vandalized or, like the <a href="https://www.icfp-fl.com/">Islamic Center of Fort Pierce</a>, targets of arson attacks. But the denial also was reminiscent of earlier difficulties for Windermere Muslims to establish a house of worship in the area. In 2014, the County had rejected a special exception petition by a Muslim couple to construct a mosque on a vacant lot northeast of Lake Tibet. With 13,000 square feet, the mosque would have been nearly twice as large as the one proposed by the Windermere Religious Center (Wood, 2016, August 19). The Windermere area to this date lacks a purpose-built mosque or Islamic center. To address the worship needs of Muslim residents of Windermere, Lake Mable, Lake Tibet, and Lake Butler, the <a href="https://www.icorlando.org/">Islamic Center of Orlando</a> recently established a prayer space, the Windermere Musholla, in a commercial property in Winter Garden. References <ul> <li>Baquero, Gaby. (2016, December 1). Mosque seeks expansion. Windermere Observer (Winter Garden, FL), p. A1. Retrieved from <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?%20p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/16171242F31898D0.">https://infoweb-newsbank-com</a>.</li> <li>Hendrix, Danielle. (2016, July 28). More details emerge about proposed mosque. Southwest Orange Observers, p. 1. Retrieved from <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?%20p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/15EB41890A680830.">https://infoweb-newsbank-com</a>.</li> <li>Kerr, Zak. (2016, March 31). Developers introduce plans for mosque. Windermere Observer (Winter Garden, FL), p. 5. Retrieved from <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?%20p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/15CAEC12B5DC6420">https://infoweb-newsbank-com</a>.</li> <li>Kerr, Zak. (2016, March 25). Community meeting addresses mosque. Windermere Observer. Retrieved from <a>www.orangeobserver.com</a>.</li> <li>Proposed mosque has some Windermere residents concerned. (2016, March 17). ABC - 9 WFTV: Web Edition Articles (Orlando, FL). Retrieved from <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?%20p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/15BA9B9B1B1F5C00.">https://infoweb-newsbank-com</a>.</li> <li>Residents fight mosque plan on Windermere Road. (2016, March 11). ABC - 9 WFTV: Web Edition Articles (Orlando, FL). Retrieved from <a href="https://infoweb-newsbank-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/apps/news/document-view?%20p=WORLDNEWS&docref=news/15B8FB3830882DD8">https://infoweb-newsbank-com</a>.</li> <li>Wood, Debra. (2016, August 19). Keene’s Pointe resident hopes to build mosque: Many express concern over land use. Southwest Orlando Bulletin. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.southwestorlandobulletin.com/keenes-pointe-resident-hopes-build-mosque.">www.southwestorlandobulletin.com</a>. </li> </ul> Year Year the case began. 2016 Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance Public Campaign, Planning and Zoning Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Windermere, FL Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stewart Zelnick Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University Description An account of the resource In early August 2016 and after more than two hours of presentations, public comment, and deliberations, the Orange County Board of Zoning Adjustments votes unanimously to deny the Muslim community’s request for a special exception to build a mosque in a residential area along the northern shore of Lake Mabel. Opponents comment mostly on the impact the mosque would have on the area’s rural nature, but during information meetings about the planned project and at the meeting before the BZA negative statements about Islam and mosques creep into the conversation as well. Denied Mosque Not Built Planning and Zoning Public Campaign https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/4a6d8fa59390954437d6a9ec4b7f836d.JPG cacf5a218f9817793739645c0f75c8b8 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Florida Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. Fl_03 Location The location of the interview White City, FL Date November 2008-February 2009 Narrative Enter the narrative about the case here. It took the Muslim Friends of Florida almost a decade before they could celebrate Ramadan in their own Islamic center. Their first attempt to build a mosque on a 3-acre lot in White City encountered substantial community opposition when MFF submitted its proposal to St. Lucie County in 2008. Eventually, a compromise was found that allowed MFF to receive the necessary permits from the county, but the project never moved to construction because of financial difficulties. It would take another five years before MFF, now operating as the Islamic Association of Treasure Coast, established the Islamic Center of Treasure Coast at its current location in Fort Pierce. In 2008, the MFF made plans for a purpose-built mosque in a rural area of White City. The group had been in the Treasure Coast region since the early 1970s where its members had participated in prayer services at other area mosques. The plan for their own mosque took concrete form in November 2008 when the group submitted a proposal for an 18,000-square-foot facility replete with Islamicate architectural elements including a dome and spire. In addition to a prayer hall for an estimated average of 50 worshippers during Friday prayers, the building also included space for social and educational events (Pfahler, 2008, December 4). A rezoning application was required because only one of the two parcels on which the structure was to be built had been zoned for a house of worship. The other was zoned for residential development. Public opposition was first formed at a Planning Commission meeting in November and a public information session MFF held to discuss the project with the community. It reached a peak at the subsequent County Commission meeting on December 4. More than 100 residents were in attendance. Most of those speaking out against the mosque during the three-hour public comment section cited concerns about the proposed project’s size, drainage issues, and negative effects on property values. A property appraiser who spoke on behalf of opposing residents reinforced the concern over property values by comparing the project to the construction of a Home Depot in a residential zone (Westbury, 2008, December 4). The project had come before the County Commission with a 7-2 recommendation for approval from the Planning Commission, which in turn had followed staff recommendation for approval. The County Commission, however, tabled the vote on the project with the understanding that MFF would bring back a scaled-down site plan for approval at the next regularly scheduled meeting in February. "We have micromanaged this particular property beyond anything I've ever seen,” remarked one of the Commissioners at the end of the initial re-zoning hearing (Pfahler, 2008, December 4). The County Commission eventually approved MFF’s smaller site plan for a 14,400-square feet facility at its February meeting over strong opposition from local residents. Despite the eventual approval, the project never came to fruition for financial reasons. To accommodate their members’ persistent need for worship space, MFF first rented a storefront in Fort Pierce for several years before finally acquiring a former church building for its Islamic center. In June 2015, just in time for Ramadan celebrations, the new Islamic Center of Treasure Coast opened. References <ul> <li>Pfahler, Eric. (2008, Dec 04). St. Lucie to revisit proposal to build White City mosque. TCPalm. Retrieved from <a href="http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/dec/04/st-lucie-to-revisit-proposal-to-build-white-city">www.tcpalm.com</a>. </li> <li>Westbury, Anthony.(2008, Dec 4). Mosque debate shines dim light on community. TCPalm. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.tcpalm.com/story/opinion/columnists/anthony-westbury/2017/04/28/anthony-westbury-mosque-debate-shinesdim-light-community/101023194">www.tcpalm.com</a>.</li> </ul> Plus Code Enter the plus code for the location, if it is available. 9MW4+98 White City, Florida Coordinates Enter the coordinates for the location, if they are available. 27.395971, -80.344158 Proposed Project The submitted side plan details a 18,000-square-foot facility with Islamicate architectural elements including a prayer hall for an estimated average of 50 worshippers as well as space for social and educational events. The property is partially zoned for religious use. Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. Muslim Friends of Floridan (dba <a href="http://ictcfl.org">Islamic Association of Treasure Coast</a>) Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance public campaign Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications The revised plan receives the county’s approval despite continued public opposition. The project, however, never gets built for financial reasons. Last Updated Date revised. June 12, 2021 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. The St. Lucie County Commission eventually passes a scaled-down site plan for a mosque over strong public opposition. A rezoning application is required because only one of the two parcels on which the structure is to be built is zoned for a house of worship. County staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval over concerns from residents about the project's size and its impacts on the environment and property values. After three hours of public comments, the County Commission strikes a compromise and asks the Muslim community to submit a downsized site plan for approval. The revised plan receives the county’s approval despite continued public opposition but never gets built for financial reasons. Year Year the case began. 2008 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource White City, FL Description An account of the resource In February 2009, the Muslim Friends of Florida eventually receive approval from the St. Lucie County Commission for a scaled-down version of a site-plan they had proposed the previous year. The approval follows months of public opposition that reaches its peak at a County Commission meeting in December 2008. The meeting is attended by more than 100 residents. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stewart Zelnick Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University Approved Mosque Not Built Public Campaign https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/59bcbb4ea8c06069ca65209d32953b44.jpg 6b99c5266ad81c05df6e2f48d6175739 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource New Jersey Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. NJ_07 Location The location of the interview Bernards Township, NJ Date April 2012-August 2017 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. The Islamic Society of Basking Ridge (ISBR) seeks to construct a 4,252 square-foot mosque on a 4-acre residential lot in Bernards Township, NJ. The Planning Board ultimately denies ISBR’s application even though the ordinance permits houses of worship in residential zones. The denial comes after close to 40 hearings on the issue over three and one-half years of outspoken public public opposition to the project. ISBR files an RLUIPA complaint against the township. Support comes in the form of an amicus brief by the Becket Fund and a broad interfaith coalition as well as a separate RLUIPA complaint by the DOJ. A $3.5 million settlement finally allows the project to move forward even though the Thomas More Law Center seeks to obtain an injunction against the settlement. Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 124 Church Street, Bernards Township, NJ 07938 Proposed Project Islamic Center (mosque) Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="isbri.org">Islamic Society of Basking Ridge</a> Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance crimes against property (vandalism); public campaign; administrative denial; legislation; legal campaign Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications approved as proposed (after initial denial and lawsuit/settlement) Last Updated Date revised. July 20, 2020 Year Year the case began. 2012 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Bernard Township, NJ Description An account of the resource A documented account of Case No. NJ_07, occurring in Bernard Township, NJ, 07938 from April 2012 to August 2017 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stewart Zelnick Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University DOJ Lawsuit (RLUIPA) https://usmc.oxomeka.org/files/original/498f20324cafd009060fa99f116943cd.jpg 6b9a3dc8216eb6c73a9d2cd82cd67b48 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource New Jersey Case Use this Item Type to create the case Item Pages for the U.S. Mosque Controversies site. Case Number Enter the case number in this field using the format: Case No. XX_00 (e.g. Case No. Ga_01) Case No. NJ_11 Location The location of the interview City of Vineland Date March 2016-December 2018 Summary Enter a brief description of the case (no more than 600 characters). This should be one or two sentences. In February 2017, the Garden State Islamic Center (GSIC) brings an RLUIPA suit against the City of Vineland after the city’s denial of septic permits. The city had approved plans for the mosque in 2012, but when GSIC moved into the second phase of its construction in 2016, the city withheld the necessary permits claiming the project no longer fulfilled sewage regulation requirements. GSIC’s RLUIPA suit alleges decade-long harassment by the city dating back to an earlier lawsuit and settlement over the center’s initial application in 2009. The city files a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that sewage regulations are not covered by RLUIPA. The District Court of New Jersey denies the motion to dismiss following a Statement of Interest by the DOJ arguing for a broad remedial interpretation of RLUIPA. Address Enter the full address, if it is available. 700 Bird Street, Vineland, NJ 08360 Proposed Project Islamic Center (mosque, social space, classrooms, offices) Proposed By List the entity (legal entity or community name) that proposed the project. <a href="http://gsicnj.org/">Garden State Islamic Center</a> Type of Opposition Public Campaign, Vandalism, Legal Action, Local Ordinance administrative denial Outcome Rejected, Approved, Approved with Modifications approved (after initial denial and RLUIPA lawsuit) Year Year the case began. 2016 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource City of Vineland, NJ Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Stewart Zelnick Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Oxford College of Emory University Description An account of the resource NJ_11 DOJ Lawsuit (RLUIPA)