By: Matt Chiappardi
ROOSEVELT The controversial Yeshiva Me’on Hatorah is planning to be open for the 2007-2008 school year, says yeshiva Vice President Josh Pruzansky. That’s despite a number of mammoth hurdles the Jewish school faces with regard to housing and other issues.
Those hurdles include:
local zoning variances for two of three houses recently ruled by the state to be illegal dormitories;
in their absence, the apparent need to bus students; and
the house that the yeshiva was using as a dormitory last year at 53 N. Rochdale Ave. was recently sold by its owner Paul Brottman after the ruling, further limiting the yeshiva’s already cramped boarding situation.
That’s not to mention the borough’s contention that the yeshiva, itself, is an illegal use under local zoning.
Earlier this month, the yeshiva was forced by the state to close the three buildings it was using to house students because they lacked a fire suppression system, had illegal and unsafe electrical wiring, and lacked the necessary certificates of occupancy to be used as school dormitories, according to the state Department of Community Affairs, which serves as the borough’s code office.
Nevertheless, Mr. Pruzansky said this week that he is hopeful the yeshiva will serve nearly 60 students during the upcoming school year, and use the two remaining buildings.
The two houses one at 18 Homestead Lane, the other at 28 Homestead Lane sit in a residential/agricultural zone. To have more than five unrelated people living in the buildings would require a variance from the Planning Board for use as dormitories, said Mayor Beth Battel.
The mayor would not comment any further because of possible litigation between people associated with the yeshiva and the borough.
But Mr. Pruzansky said he doesn’t accept the mayor’s interpretation of the ordinance "at face value," and is committed to challenge it. If not granted a variance he said, "We’ll have our attorneys deal with their attorneys."
The yeshiva also would have to address the issues that resulted in a settlement with the state that cost the school $4,000 in fines. Installing a working fire suppression system is the most important issue facing the would-be dormitories, said Mr. Pruzansky. The others, including the wiring and the COs, "are not major things," he added. All of the issues will be remedied by the yeshiva’s opening target of late August.
The yeshiva had not filed the CO application by Monday, according to Chris Donnelly of the DCA.
Mr. Brottman and his tenant, Rabbi Yisroel Eisenberg, had filed a lawsuit in Monmouth County state Superior Court against former borough Zoning Officer Bob Francis and the Planning Board in January. The suit targeted the board’s failure to make a decision after its 4-4 stalemate in December 2006 over whether to uphold a zoning violation Mr. Francis issued to Mr. Brottman. At the time, 25 students were living in the single-family home in violation of the borough’s zoning ordnance.
Earlier this month, yeshiva attorney Edward Liston filed a motion to dismiss that lawsuit, scheduled to be heard Sept. 21, after the yeshiva settled with the DCA and vacated the buildings, according to borough officials.
If the yeshiva’s attempt to obtain a variance fails before the beginning of the upcoming school year, it may have to turn to busing in order to transport students there. Mr. Pruzansky did not rule out that possibility.
"We are evaluating how we are going to house and transport our students, and are still exploring our options."
The yeshiva, where Jewish boys older than 13 study the Torah and the Talmud in the Orthodox tradition, also is having its very existence challenged by the borough. The yeshiva is housed at Congregation Anshei Roosevelt Synagogue on Homestead Lane, which is zoned for religious use. However, the Planning Board’s 6-1 decision in 2006 holds that the yeshiva is a private school and thus operating in violation of the law.
Yeshiva officials contend that it is, by definition in Jewish law, a house of worship. The yeshiva’s attorney has threatened lawsuits against the borough, claiming the decision violates the school’s First Amendment rights and the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
