Roosevelt, NJ – Court Finds Yeshiva Provided Illegal Dorm for Students

Roosevelt, NJ – The Superior Court of New Jersey has determined that Yeshiva Me’on Hatorah in Roosevelt housed students in a single-family home that it converted into an illegal dormitory.

Judge Lawrence Lawson, sitting in Freehold, decided that the yeshiva violated zoning ordinances and two certificates of occupancy by using 28 Homestead Lane as a dormitory, which is not a permitted use in the residential zone. Homes in this zone can have no more than five unrelated occupants.

“The record clearly reflects that [the yeshiva] maintains maintenance men and cooks, has regular large scale food and drink deliveries, furniture deliveries, commercial kitchen appliance deliveries, and maintains the residence with locked and numbered rooms with several beds or bunk beds in each room,” Lawson wrote in his decision. “More importantly, every inspector and local administrative officer who observed the home both from the outside and inside, as well as expert planners reviewing files, testified that it was in fact a dormitory.”

The yeshiva had asked the Superior Court to review the borough’s 2009 decision that it was in violation of borough zoning ordinances by using 28 Homestead Lane as a dormitory in a residential zone where dorms are not permitted.

According to Lawson, the court reviewed various documents to render its decision in the matter, including the 2005 lease that the yeshiva entered into with Congregation Anshei Roosevelt for use of the synagogue at 20 Homestead Lane. The lease stated that the yeshiva would use 20 Homestead Lane for “a synagogue, religious school, adult education services, outreach programming to adults and children, dormitory, kitchen, classrooms and all uses related thereto.” In January 2007, in furtherance of the lease, the yeshiva purchased 28 Homestead Lane as a dorm for housing yeshiva students, according to the court.

“Plaintiffs clearly understood that the residence they were providing was one of a dormitory and not some family lifestyle equivalent which derives protection under the law,” Lawson wrote.

The court also took into consideration residents’ written and oral complaints regarding the nonpermitted use, which resulted in the borough’s zoning officer and housing officer trying to inspect the site on three occasions.

“Each time the zoning officer attempted to inspect the premises, Rabbi [Yisroel] Eisenberg, the rabbi responsible for the congregation’s operations, declined to permit same, offering a myriad of excuses,” Lawson wrote.

When the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) inspected the property Oct. 28, 2008, the inspector classified the property as a dormitory under the definitions in the fire code and cited it for failing to have an automatic fire-suppression system. At that time, according to the court, DCA inspectors observed 30 or more young men eating breakfast in the home that had enough tables and chairs to accommodate over 30 people. The home also had a commercial stove without a fire suppression system, nine bedrooms with numbers on the doors, 18 beds inside and nine beds in the garage. After the inspection, the DCA supervisor determined that the property was found to have overcrowding.

The court found that the Monmouth County health officer inspected the property Nov. 3, 2009, and saw two commercial stoves and two areas with commercial stainless steel sinks. He determined the kitchen had the ability to feed 43 people by observing food, kitchen and dining supplies and a worker preparing meals. The officer cited the yeshiva for operating a commercial kitchen without approval to do so.

Lawson said that the rabbi pleaded guilty to operating the food service facility when the matter went to court.

“As a result of its guilty plea, the yeshiva was fined and issued a cease and desist order, and informed the judge that it hoped to obtain the required approvals before the fall,” Lawson wrote. “Therefore, it appears … that the yeshiva is aware it is operating a dormitory.”

The court also discovered that the residence had been the subject of several fire calls over the years. When a local fire chief responded to a fire alarm, he “essentially characterized the house as one in a state of chaos,” according to the court. The chief reported that he received no cooperation and vague answers when he asked students who was in charge of the household, according to the court.

Lawson said that in bringing the appeal, the law required the challenging party to produce evidence to support its assertion that the zoning officer’s decision was in error, which it did not. The yeshiva also had to prove that the Planning Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably in affirming the zoning officer’s decision that the yeshiva was using the home as an illegal dorm, which it did not, according to the court.

“After a thorough and expansive review of the controlling law on this subject, as well as the record,” the court concurred “with the [planning] board’s finding that the instant use is an institutional one, and not anything at all similar to a family-like household.”

Lawson said that unlike a family, the students have a landlord; do not stay in the home permanently; and have yeshiva employees prepare their meals and perform household chores.