For the last several monnths, a battle has been brewing in the Cadillac Drive neighborhood. The picturesque, oak-lined street with estate-sized lots and a country-in-the-city feel is deeply divided. On one side, the Chabad Lubavitch Jewish organization proposes to construct a new 15,000 square foot synagouge on a lot zoned (at least in part) for residential use. On the other, the neigborhood association has cited the plan as a violation of the restrictive covenants, and demanded that the Rabbi cease and desist with efforts to construct any structure which violates the residential-use-only restrictions on the lot.
Of course, it is never that simple...there are factors that complicate both sides of the coin, and their respective arguments. First, the Rabbi lives on Cadillac Drive -- actually right between two members of the CDNA Board of Dirctors. Second, it is claimed that religious services have been performed on the lot for years, with no prior complaints by the Association. Third, the lot in question has dual zoning from the City of San Antonio, and dual classifications under the restrictive covenants -- half )(the back half) is within the neighborhood association's jurisdiction while the other half is exempted. Fourth, and perhaps most interesting, is the fact that the Rabbi and his wife voted many years ago in favor of placing the residential-use only restrictions on the lot where the synagouge is now proposed.
Our firm initially represented the neighborhood association, and issued the letter directing the CL to cease and desist with violations of the restrictions. In addition, we participated in conducting and noticing an election, whereby the membership of the Association could vote whether to make an exception to the restrictions, and authorize construction of the synagouge on the lot in question. This election resulted in an overwhelming denial of the requested amendment.
As of this writing the parties remain locked in a stand-off. The Association and its Board have spoken. However, the Rabbi and his legal team have taken note of a provision in the Restrictive Covenants that allow them to be amended by a majority of the Owners. Thus, there is an effort underway to secure -- by petition -- enough votes to amend the Restrictions in much the manner previously denied by the Association's membership.
Only time will tell...
