Apr 10, 2013 9:12 AM

The East End Eruv Association presented its case to the Southampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals last week for establishing a religious boundary called an eruv in Westhampton Beach Village and Quogue Village, and including the unincorporated area in between.

The association is asking the ZBA to reverse Town Chief Building Inspector Michael Benincasa’s determination that “lechis,” or markers that delineate the eruv’s boundaries, are signs, which are prohibited by town code to be posted on telephone poles. If a reversal is not granted, the EEEA is asking for a variance to be granted, which would allow the placement of 28 lechis on 15 utility poles on Summit Boulevard, Montauk Highway and Tanners Neck Lane.

An eruv is a symbolic boundary and visible demarcation of a defined geographic area that allows Orthodox Jews to push strollers, wheelchairs and carry items such as house keys on the Sabbath and religious holidays. The eruv extends to streets, sidewalks and the private properties within and along the border. Without an eruv, Orthodox Jews could not do those and other activities prohibited outdoors on the Sabbath, according to Jewish law, and may be prevented from attending temple.

The proposed eruv would span from Quogue Village to Westhampton Beach Village, and include areas of Westhampton and Quiogue. Only the unincorporated areas are under the purview of the Town ZBA, and the subject of the application. The Hampton Synagogue is the only house of worship that would benefit from the boundary.

The proposed eruv has been the subject of controversy for locals for more than four years. The ZBA application is the most recent attempt by the EEEA to set up an eruv—last year, the Quogue Village Board rejected an EEEA application that sought permission to install 48 lechis in the municipality.

And last summer, the Jewish People Opposed to the Eruv (JPOE), filed a federal lawsuit against the Village of Westhampton Beach, the EEEA, and utility companies Long Island Power Authority and Verizon, stating that the establishment of an eruv would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. District Judge Leonard D. Wexler dismissed the lawsuit earlier this year without explanation, and the JPOE plans to appeal the judge’s decision.

Two other lawsuits are set to be heard by the same judge this month. The first, initiated by the EEEA, alleges that Southampton Town and the villages of Quogue and Westhampton Beach violated the constitutional rights of members of the group by interfering with negotiations with LIPA and Verizon. The second was jointly filed by the utility companies, also naming the three municipalities as defendants, arguing that utilities cannot be fined for allowing the EEEA to install lechis on their poles. The trial pertaining to the LIPA and Verizon lawsuit is slated to begin this month.

At this month’s ZBA meeting, Attorney Michael McCarthy, of McCarthy and Reynolds PC of Huntington, who is representing the EEEA, argued against Mr. Benincasa’s determination that the lechis are signs. He said that they do not convey a message to the general public and would not be noticed, since they would be camouflaged on the utility poles. A lechi is typically a plain black plastic strip, signifying a door post.

“People wouldn’t even know it was there,” he said. “A lechi is rather benign and can be painted so it blends in with the pole. The casual observer wouldn’t even know it was there.”

He continued on to say that he was “befuddled” that Mr. Benincasa would consider the lechi a sign, because there are no markings, numbers or letters, and there is not a symbol of any kind on them.

According to Robert Sugarman of the Manhattan firm of Weil, Gotshal and Manges, who is defending the EEEA in the federal lawsuit, there can be no alternative way to mark the eruv, according to the advice of religious authorities. He pointed out that posting lechis is so common in the United States that Verizon has a standard form eruv agreement.

Jonathan Sinnreich, of Sinnreich Kosakoff and Messina LLP of Central Islip, the attorney representing the JPOE, said the lechi is indeed a sign that is “intended to communicate a deeply symbolic religious message,” and is not “a merely passive and utilitarian device...”

Further, the establishment of an eruv would be “a condescending insult to the members of JPOE and the public at large,” and would create a separation between Orthodox Jews and Jews who do not belong to that community, he said.

“Establishing an eruv would be dividing the Jewish community into belongers and non-belongers—who can join and who cannot,” he said. “Its purpose is to consciously and deliberately promote the idea of inclusion and non-inclusion.”