An ongoing Justice Department investigation into Henrico County’s denial of a Muslim mosque three years ago was weighing on county planners and supervisors when they reversed course and approved the mosque this summer.
Federal documents released Tuesday, which announced a settlement of allegations that the county had violated federal law in rejecting the mosque in 2008, show that Planning Commission members and supervisors as well as staffers had been interviewed by Justice Department investigators months before backers of the mosque submitted a new application.
On June 14 this year, Henrico County Attorney Joseph P. Rapisarda Jr. met with supervisors and Planning Commission members who decided to invite mosque backers to reapply, federal documents show.
The new rezoning application was filed the next day, June 15, and the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors approved the mosque rezoning proposal at meetings in July and August despite some public opposition.
“There are no compelling reasons that I’ve searched for to make sure that we didn’t impose on the community something we could stop,” Brookland District Supervisor Richard W. Glover said the night of the 5-0 vote Aug. 9, referring to the federal laws banning religious discrimination.
The vote allowed rezoning of a 3.6-acre tract on Impala Road that will be the site of the 10,500-square-foot mosque; the rezoning had been rejected in 2008 by a 3-2 vote by the same board members.
“I’m so glad that the board saw the light and finally approved it,” Imad Damaj, president of the Virginia Muslim Coalition for Public Affairs, said after the meeting.
The settlement announced late Tuesday, which awaits approval by a federal judge, requires the county to follow provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 and incorporates requirements for training county elected and staff personnel as well as Planning Commission members.
It also requires the county to not illegally impede the mosque as it moves toward construction.
“The law — not stereotypes or bias — should dictate whether a worship facility can be built in a community,” Neil H. MacBride, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said in a statement Tuesday.
A complaint against Henrico County filed with the settlement Tuesday alleges that the county’s 2008 denial of the rezoning application “was based on the religious bias of county officials and to appease members of the public who, because of religious bias, opposed construction of the mosque,” according to the Justice Department.
The complaint alleges that the county used faulty traffic engineering studies, that county officials made discriminatory statements about the mosque, and that the county had never turned down a rezoning application submitted by a Christian church.
The alleged discrimination extended into consideration of the second rezoning application, according to the Justice Department, in that a Planning Commission member suggested that mosque backers should promise to perform charitable work “in order to be a good neighbor,” a requirement that has never attached to non-Muslim religious denominations.
The same Planning Commission member, who was not identified, said he was voting to recommend approval because of the federal law.
Under the settlement, the county agrees to provide training to elected officials, Planning Commission members and staffers about the federal law and to develop procedures to address complaints. It directs the county to place the mosque in a position consistent with having given approval three years ago.
“Several planning commissioners and planning department staff stated that they were not familiar with the provisions” of the land-use act, according to the complaint.
In the consent agreement, the county agrees not to discriminate on the basis of religion and to “not improperly interfere with or otherwise delay the processing or issuing of any necessary permits.”
The county planning office must post on its homepage that it does not discriminate on religious grounds and must train key county officials and staffers, including clerical workers, about provisions of the federal act. The county must document its adherence to the consent order.