Roosevelt resident pursues possible code infractions
Attorney subpoenas for lease between yeshiva, synagogue
BY JENNIFER KOHLHEPP
Staff Writer

An appeal of the Roosevelt zoning officer’s decision that the local yeshiva isn’t violating borough ordinances will continue on Feb. 14.

In September, the Borough Council received a petition, signed by more than 200 residents, regarding the day school for high-school-aged boys located at the Homestead Lane synagogue. The petition alleged that the yeshiva is violating a borough ordinance that prohibits private schools in residential neighborhoods.

In response to the petition, the Borough Council sent Bob Francis, the borough’s zoning officer, to inspect the yeshiva on Sept. 23.

At an Oct. 10 Borough Council meeting, Francis reported that he did not find the yeshiva in any violation of borough ordinances.

Francis concluded in his report, “Since this is a religious institution, it is allowed to have religious instruction.”

As a result, resident Bert Ellentuck, who lives next door to the yeshiva, said he would appeal Francis’ decision and that he would pursue the yeshiva’s possible violations of borough code with the Planning Board.

On Dec. 15, the Planning Board held a public hearing of the appeal for interpretation of the zoning officer’s decision regarding the yeshiva.

Vice Chairman Jane Rothfuss presided over the board because Chairperson Ralph Seligman had to recuse himself from the discussions because he lives within 200 feet of the local synagogue and yeshiva. Mayor and board member Neil Marko also recused himself from the discussion, as did Councilwoman and board member Elsbeth Battel.

During the hearing, Planning Board Attorney Michele Donato said Seligman signed a subpoena for the lease between Congregation Anshei Roosevelt and Yeshiva Me’on Hatorah, of Riverdale, N.Y.

Edward F. Liston Jr., attorney for Yeshiva Me’on Hatorah, said the subpoena should have been signed by someone other than Seligman. He also argued that the lease would not be relevant to the appeal.

Donato said she does not think Seligman’s signature invalidates the subpoena. She said she would have someone else sign the subpoena because she did not know Seligman lived within 200 feet of the synagogue.

Ronald S. Gasiorowski, Ellentuck’s attorney, said he is subpoenaing for the lease because his client feels that the zoning officer and the borough attorney are not correct in stating that the yeshiva is not violating borough ordinances because there “are currently two principal uses on the property.”

“That is why we have the subpoena regarding the lease — to learn what they intend to do with this property,” Gasiorowski said.

Donato said Roosevelt ordinances state that there can only be one principal use per lot.

According to Gasiorowski, borough ordinances recognize public schools as a principal primary use in the R-40 zone. He said ordinances also recognize houses of worship as a conditional use, but they must satisfy standards such as parking, etc.

According to municipal land-use law, a conditional use is only permitted in part of a zoning district upon showing that such a use in a specific location will comply with the conditions and standards for the operation of such use as contained in the zoning ordinance and upon the issuance of authorization by the Planning Board.

The Planning Board also had a letter from Borough Attorney Ira Karasick to Francis that Francis used to make his determination regarding the yeshiva.

In the letter, Karasick stated that “the rights of a private school are the same as a public school, a permitted principal use in the R-40 zone and therefore the community and board cannot deny them to conduct a yeshiva.”

Municipal land-use law states, “It is illegal for a municipality or county to discriminate between public and private nonprofit day schools of elementary or high school grade accredited by the state’s Department of Education (DOE) by zoning ordinances governing the use of land.”

During the hearing, Donato asked Francis if the yeshiva is accredited by the DOE. Francis said that it is not.

Francis said the classes at the yeshiva are 80 percent religious and 20 percent secular study. He said there are 12 students in classes at the yeshiva.

Francis also reported that there is no residential use of the synagogue and that the house next door to the synagogue is used by the yeshiva as an office, although he said he did not go in there during the inspection.

Since Francis concluded that the synagogue is a “conditional use” and the school is a “permitted use,” Gasiorowski asked him if the synagogue is operating apart from the school. Francis said he did not know.

Gasiorowski also asked Francis if the synagogue would conduct services at the same time the yeshiva students had instruction. Francis said he did not know.

In his report, Francis said that Congregation Anshei would have to apply to the Planning Board to make changes to the exterior of the synagogue or to have new buildings put up on the property. He also said such renovations to the property would require a study on traffic, parking, water use and other factors.

The hearing will continue at 7 p.m. on Feb. 14. Gasiorowski is expected to present two witnesses; Liston is expected to present three witnesses.