BY JENNIFER KOHLHEPP
Staff Writer

ROOSEVELT — The Roosevelt Planning Board has reached a stalemate in its decision regarding the use of the Brottman house.

When a motion was made at the board’s Dec. 12 meeting to reverse the borough zoning officer’s decision that the North Rochdale Avenue home is not being used in accordance to borough ordinances, the motion failed in a vote of 4-4, with Jane Rothfuss, Jim Alt, Alison Petrilla and Tim Hartley all voting against the measure.

When a second motion was made later on 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.

After the two votes, which took place around 11 p.m., Planning Board Attorney Michele Donato said, “I don’t know what to say, and I have to do some research as to what happens now.”

The board ultimately decided to call the meeting to a close because it could not render a decision in the case.

Prior to resigning from his position as the borough’s zoning officer, Robert Francis had issued a violation to Paul Brottman, the owner of 53 N. Rochdale Ave. 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.

Rabbi Yisroel Eisenberg, of Yeshiva Me’on Hatorah, is currently leasing the residence from Brottman for use by students who attend the yeshiva. The yeshiva, an Orthodox Jewish high school for boys that operates out of the Homestead Lane synagogue, is appealing Francis’ decision. The yeshiva’s lawyer, Edward J. Liston, is also representing Brottman in the hearing.

On Sept. 26, the board heard from Francis but decided that it did not have enough information to rule regarding Francis’ decision. It therefore sent out subpoenas to various yeshiva officials, along with Brottman and a New Jersey State Police trooper who once visited the Brottman house.

Because Planning Board Chairman Ralph Seligman was not present at the Dec. 12 meeting, Rothfuss, the vice chairwoman, presided over the continuation of the hearing. For various reasons, board members Michael Ticktin, Steve Yeger, Councilman Michael Hamilton and Mayor Elsbeth “Beth” Battel recused themselves.

Although the board had subpoenaed Eisenberg and yeshiva Vice President Joshua Pruzansky for the hearing, Liston started off by saying that he did not intend to call them as witnesses and cautioned the board to be careful not to do that, stating, “It takes on the characteristics of an inquisition.”

“To force them to testify is harassment,” Liston argued. “If you call them as witnesses, in my opinion, you do so at your own peril.”

Donato responded, “I take umbrage at the idea that the questions are harassment. You don’t even know what they are. We have no intention to harass, harm, interrogate or do anything negative in any way. We are just trying to get information.”

The board called on Eisenberg to testify. Upon the questioning, Eisenberg testified that the yeshiva has insurance covering the Brottman property for use by the yeshiva students. The insurance is a commercial-generated liability insurance policy rather than a homeowners insurance policy.

According to Eisenberg, 25 students, all of whom are under the age of 18, currently live in the Brottman house. When asked if there is a limit as to how many residents could stay in the home, Eisenberg said, “There is a limit because they have to be able to fit in there and there has to be room for everybody.”

No yeshiva students’ families are residents of Roosevelt, according to Eisenberg, nor do the families have a contract with the yeshiva in terms of living arrangements.

The students are living at the Brottman house “as my guests,” the rabbi said.

Liston added, “No money changes hands for them to stay as guests at that house.”

Eisenberg said, “Since I am a Roosevelt resident, I would open my house to anybody.”

Eisenberg does not live in the Brottman house. He said he pays an adult supervisor to watch over the students while they are there. The supervisor is present in the home when the boys are there, which the rabbi testified is roughly between 10 p.m. and 7:20 a.m., when the yeshiva is not open.

Although the students can eat in the home, the rabbi said they have most of their meals at the yeshiva. He said the home has a kitchen as well as a laundry facility that the students use.

Pruzansky spoke about the insurance for the Brottman home, saying that it is a rider on the yeshiva’s insurance.

“I could extend the insurance to 20 different homes and to wherever the boys are at,” he said. “It’s to protect the boys and the people who are where they are at.”

When Brottman testified, he said there are four bedrooms in the home with an option for five, as a small room off the kitchen can be converted into one. The home, which measures about 2,500 square feet, also has two bathrooms, he said.

Looking at the situation as “just another in a series of rentals,” Brottman, of Jackson, said, “I rented the house to Rabbi Eisenberg. I am not aware of anything else regarding the yeshiva.”

Upon testifying, Goetzmann said he issued a permit of occupancy from the borough of Roosevelt. According to Goetzmann, a certificate of occupancy (CO) is a form that can only be issued by the state of New Jersey.

Goetzmann said he visited the Brottman property on April 25 and inspected it according to a punch list of items he was given by the borough, which were based on the state housing code.

Although Goetzmann said the inspection revealed minor things that needed to be repaired, he said he issued the permit and asked Brottman to make the repairs the following week. Upon returning to inspect the home for the necessary repairs, Goetzmann said all of them had been done except for a missing plate on one of the light switches. The second inspection revealed that 12 cots had been moved into the home.

Goetzmann said six of the rooms in the home contained beds, including the dining room. Seeing the beds prompted Goetzmann to call Francis and ask him to go with him on his return check of the home on May 16 to see whether the light switch had been fixed.

“The zoning officer found essentially the same things I had concerns about,” Goetzmann said.

The state trooper and the adult supervisor who lives in the Brottman home did not appear to testify. After hearing the testimony from those present, Donato reiterated that the Borough of 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 arrangements in the Vallorosi case, which the court deemed a single family, Donato took issue with the argument. She said the students in the 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.

She added, “I see nothing in this case that says [the students went] home for vacation and holidays.”

Donato also instructed the board — which did not know the particulars of the state housing code the borough adopted — that the state housing code requires a defined number of square feet and bathrooms for a certain number of people living in a home. However, she said she did not know those figures, nor did she know for certain if the borough had adopted them.

Before rendering their decision on the matter, board members made some comments regarding the case.

Petrilla said, “I just don’t see a place to sleep as a housekeeping unit. [The yeshiva students] were placed there by an institutional decision.”

Alt said that he sees the Vallorosi arrangement as an agreement among adults whereas minors have no legal ability to form that intent.

“I would argue that these children never formed any intent to live together as a family,” he said. “They had no alternative but to live in this facility as a dorm.”

Board member Jaymie Kosa argued that a person should have the right to have 25 guests in his home if he or she wants to.

Board member Bob Dermody argued that no one in nearby Hightstown would argue if someone placed an ad in the paper looking for four people who attend The Peddie School in that town to live in a house as guests.

Stating that he didn’t think the definition of family would ever be the same, Dermody added that the students who attend the yeshiva “are closer than any family I know.”

When asked on Dec. 19 if the board had scheduled its next meeting regarding the issue, Borough Clerk Krystyna Olejnik said she had not been informed about the matter, though she did know that the next Planning Board meeting is scheduled for Jan. 9.