Brottman house issue will go to court this fall BY JENNIFER KOHLHEPP Staff Writer ROOSEVELT - The borough will have to appear in Superior Court this September regarding a yeshiva-related matter. The borough has been served with a lawsuit to challenge its zoning officer's finding that 12 minors living in a ranch house in the RA-400 zone is not a single-family use, according to Mayor Elsbeth "Beth" Battel. Edward J. Liston, an attorney representing Paul Brottman, who is leasing the use of his North Rochdale Avenue home to Rabbi Yisroel Eisenberg for use by students who attend the local yeshiva, served the borough notice of the suit to challenge, according to Battel. The case will be heard in Superior Court in Freehold on Sept. 21, she said. Prior to resigning from his position as the borough's zoning officer, Robert Francis had issued Brottman, the owner of 53 N. Rochdale Ave., a violation. Francis said the current living situation in the home, which is located in a zone for single-family residences, does not constitute a single-family use. Brottman and Yeshiva Me'on Hatorah, which is an Orthodox high school for boys that operates out of Congregation Anshei Roosevelt, Homestead Lane, appealed Francis' decision to the borough's Planning Board. Liston represented Brottman and the yeshiva in the hearings the board held on the matter. Board members came to a stalemate trying to reach a conclusion regarding the appeal, and the board ultimately was unable to render a decision. When a motion was made at the board's Dec. 12 meeting to reverse the borough zoning officer's decision that the Brottman home is not being used in accordance with borough ordinances, the motion failed in a vote of 4-4 with Jane Rothfuss, Jim Alt, Alison Petrilla and Tim Hartley voting against the measure. When a second motion was made later in the meeting to affirm the zoning officer's decision, the motion failed again in a vote of 4-4 with Jaymie Kosa, Bob Dermody, Lou Esakoff and Ed Moser voting against the measure. During the hearings, Eisenberg testified that the yeshiva has insurance covering the Brottman property for use by the yeshiva students. He said that 25 students, all of whom are under the age of 18, currently live in the Brottman house. The lawsuit, however, addresses only the 12 students living the house at the time of the inspection. Eisenberg also testified that the families of the yeshiva students do not have a contract with the yeshiva for living arrangements. He said the students are living at the Brottman house as his guests. Eisenberg said he does not live in the Brottman house, but pays an adult supervisor to watch over the students while they are there. When Brottman testified, he said there are four bedrooms in the home with an option for five if a small room off the kitchen is converted into one. The home has two bathrooms and measures about 2,500 square feet, he said. After hearing the testimonies, the board's attorney, Michele Donato, informed the board that the Glassboro v. Vallorosi court case determined that a group of young men who rented a house together while attending school was the constitutional equivalent of a family. In his closing statement, when Liston said that the situation in the Brottman house also closely compares to the living arrangement in the Vallorosi case, which the court deemed a single family, Donato took issue with the argument. She said the students in the Glassboro v. Vallorosi case chose to live in the home together and signed leases to live there. She also said that the students who lived in the Glassboro home paid their expenses out of a common fund. Donato also instructed the board that the state housing code requires a defined number of square feet and bathrooms for a certain number of people living in one home. However, she said she did not know those figures or for certain if the borough had adopted them. Battel said the matter regarding the Brottman house is now up to the courts. The Borough Council also unanimously voted on Sept. 12, 2006, to approve a motion to authorize the borough attorney to file an injunctive relief in court for the yeshiva to cease and desist its operations in accordance with a decision made by the borough's Planning Board. The council did so based on the Planning Board's overturning of another decision by its former zoning officer. In that decision, Francis had concluded upon inspection that the yeshiva was not violating borough ordinances, but the board later voted on the matter and determined that the yeshiva was violating the ordinances. However, Battel said that the board has not yet memorialized that decision. Battel said yeshiva representatives have not come before either the Borough Council or the Planning Board with plans or applications. "Whether the issue escalates into the courts is up to the yeshiva, but I certainly hope it doesn't," Battel said.