BY JANE MEGGITT
Staff Writer

ROOSEVELT — The borough’s zoning officer recently inspected the yeshiva at the synagogue on Homestead Lane and did not find any violations.

However, one of the residents who complained about possible violations at the yeshiva will take the matter before the borough’s Planning Board.

Last month, the Borough Council received a petition signed by more than 200 residents about possible violations at the yeshiva, located at Congregation Anshei Roosevelt.

The petition alleges that the yeshiva is violating a borough ordinance that prevents having a private school in a residential neighborhood.

At the Oct. 10 council meeting, Zoning Officer Bob Francis reported that he and Borough Administrator Robert Clark visited the yeshiva the morning of Sept. 23. Several yeshiva representatives were present at the time of the inspection, he said.

Francis said there are currently 12 ninth-grade students, all boys, in the school, which has two classrooms. One classroom is for religious study, according to Francis, while the other is a secular study room. The yeshiva uses one van to transport the 12 students, he said.

According to yeshiva representatives, there will be between 50 and 60 students in the building in four years. However, Francis said that no construction is taking place in the building at this time.

Bert Ellentuck, who lives next door to the synagogue and is one of the complainants, said he intends to pursue the yeshiva’s possible violations of borough code with the Planning Board.

Ellentuck said, “I think the yeshiva still has a lot of questions to answer if they are entitled to run a school.”

Ellentuck said there are always two vans at the school, and that on a number of evenings, a large, white school bus came up Homestead Lane and made a K-turn to pick up yeshiva students.

Ellentuck commented on a letter Borough Attorney Ira Karasick sent to Francis regarding the yeshiva and its potential zoning violations. According to Francis, Karasick did not attend the inspection.

The attorney’s letter states, “The property is in the R-40 district, where houses of worship are a conditional use and public schools are a permitted use. Private schools are not listed as a principal permitted use or an accessory use in the R-40 district.”

The letter states that pursuant to section 4.300 of the zoning ordinance, private schools would be a prohibited use in the R-40 district.

In the letter, Karasick states that the use of the property as a yeshiva for 12 students, without any modification of the existing facility, “comports more and is encompassed within the use of the property as a house of worship rather than constituting the establishment of a private school.”

In the letter, Karasick acknowledges such as a subjective judgment.

The letter also states that N.J. Municipal Land Use Law requires that private schools be permitted where public schools are permitted, and on the same terms.

Francis said he called the state Department of Education (DOE) and was told that the yeshiva does not need state accreditation. However, Francis said, he did not ask the DOE if the yeshiva is entitled to the same benefits as a public school.

Councilman Jeff Hunt said he is “uncomfortable” with Karasick’s letter, since the attorney presented a subjective opinion rather than an opinion based in law.

Hunt said there is a gap in the borough’s zoning ordinances regarding zoning parameters for schools. He said the nondiscrimination statute is a fallacious argument because the yeshiva is not an accredited school.

He asked that the Planning Board’s attorney render a legal opinion on the matter.

Planning Board member Michael Ticktin, who was in the audience, said the issue could come up before the Planning Board, and that the board could not be in the position of prejudging anything that came before it.

Councilman Daniel Hoffman asked what the council’s plan was if a second legal opinion disagreed with the first.

“Where do we go?” he asked.

In response to Hoffman, Hunt said that if a second legal opinion was in agreement with Karasick’s, the borough wouldn’t have to do anything. If the opinion differed, Hunt said the council would have to make choices.

The council decided not to take any action regarding Ellentuck’s complaint. Members said they would wait until Ellentuck’s appeal of the zoning officer’s inspection went before the Planning Board.