Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. City of White Plains
Docket: No. 01 Civ. 3285(CM)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York; September 6, 2001; Federal District Court
The court denied Congregation Kol Ami's motion to intervene in a case initiated by Omni-point Communications against the City of White Plains, concerning the denial of a permit to construct a monopole for antennas on property owned by Fenway Golf Club. The Congregation opposed the monopole's construction, arguing it would obstruct views from its sanctuary. The court found that Kol Ami did not meet the criteria for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), specifically lacking a protectable interest in the property and asserting that its interests were adequately represented by the City. The Congregation claimed an interest under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), suggesting the monopole would impact its right to worship due to the view obstruction. However, the court deemed this argument unconvincing, noting the Congregation did not demonstrate how RLUIPA applied to a facility on property it does not own. The ruling emphasized that RLUIPA concerns local governments imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise, not third-party interests in unrelated property transactions. The proposed monopole does not discriminate against Kol Ami, a religious organization, nor does it impose a substantial burden on their religious practice, as their property is not physically affected, only aesthetically. The issuance of a permit by White Plains would not constitute a land use regulation that limits or burdens the Congregation’s religious assembly under RLUIPA. The doctrine of 'Ancient Lights' is not recognized in the U.S., allowing landowners like Fenway to build on their property without regard for neighbors’ views. The Congregation's concerns are deemed purely aesthetic, and the City of White Plains is capable of representing those interests effectively. Kol Ami fails to meet the criteria for intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) or (4), as they did not demonstrate a significant interest in the monopole construction that would warrant intervention. Moreover, their request for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) is inappropriate due to a lack of common legal questions with the existing lawsuit concerning White Plains' permit denial. The Congregation's introduction of RLUIPA issues complicates the case, which is already set for final adjudication since discovery has concluded and a summary judgment motion has been filed. Additionally, their late request for intervention does not meet the timeliness requirement. Consequently, the court denies the motion for intervention.