Temple files legal action against Lawrence

Temple Israel took legal action in Nassau County Supreme Court on Monday against the Village of Lawrence and its building department for failure to issue a denial letter of the temple’s subdivision application.

That application sought a variance from the village to subdivide a portion of the temple’s property for sale, possibly to Peninsula Public Library.

The legal action, known as an Article 78 proceeding, asks the court to compel the village to issue formal denial letter, which it is required to do based on its municipal code. The village has until June 8 to respond.

“Our subdivision application was complete and if the subdivision doesn’t exactly conform to the village code, it has to be denied,” said Temple Israel’s attorney Garrett Gray. “The denial invokes the jurisdiction of the Board of Zoning Appeals.” After the denial letter is officially issued, the subdivision application could be considered by the BZA, Gray said.

James Rotenberg, the temple’s president, claims that the village kept asking for more information and didn’t issue the denial letter as a stalling tactic. “We believe the village intentionally withheld and delayed Temple Israel’s application until after the local election, where the two candidates who oppose the library’s acquisition of a portion of the Temple Israel property are challenging the incumbents,” said Rotenberg, who also charges the village stalled the application so it couldn’t be heard by the village’s BZA by its June meeting. The BZA doesn’t meet in July and August.

Last September, Temple Israel and Peninsula Public Library signed a letter of intent that would have the temple offering a little more than half an acre of its property — and two homes on Fulton Street — for sale to the library for $2.5 million to $3 million. The library is proposing the construction of a three-story, 30,000-square-foot building on the temple’s Central Avenue site to replace its 50-year-old, 13,000-square-foot structure at 280 Central Ave. The homes would be demolished and a 60-spot parking lot would be constructed.

Village Mayor Martin Oliner, who was not aware of the Article 78 said, “I am sure that is not the case,” referring to Rotenberg’s claims. “There were no delaying tactics to my knowledge. The village doesn’t do anything inappropriate. It is litigation, and obviously we will deal with it in court and see what a judge says.” The village has yet to receive notice of the action, Village Administrator David Smollet said.

Based on the temple’s timeline of events outlined in the Article 78, it filed a subdivision application with the village on Dec. 23. Five days later, Lawrence Building Superintendent Michael Ryder requested additional information.

Rotenberg said the temple provided that additional information on Jan. 14. Eleven days later, Ryder asked for more information. That was also provided, Rotenberg said.

On March 15, Temple Israel representatives had a meeting with village officials and, according to Rotenberg, Ryder said that due to certain variances being required as a result of the proposed subdivision, a denial letter was going to be issued.

“Representatives of Temple Israel were shown that letter,” Rotenberg said.

Ryder requested that the temple submit a zoning analysis that would complete the subdivision application, and then the denial letter would be issued. The zoning analysis was submitted on April 14. No denial letter was issued.

“On April 29, I called Ryder and asked where the [denial] letter was,” Gray said. “He said, he didn’t believe the BZA would grant the variances we sought. It is not up to him.”

Gray said he wrote a letter to Ryder on May 11 demanding that the denial letter be issued. Two days later, Ryder responded through an undated letter: “An application of this size requires a detailed review that includes code interpretation from counsel,” he wrote.

“Up until our last submission the village had been extremely responsive to our submission,” said Gray, who added that the village’s “stonewalling” left Temple Israel with no choice but to, “exercise its legal rights.”