September 21, 2011 THE VILLADOM TIMES IV • Page 3 Mahwah Chai Lifeline sues over zoning board’s denial by Frank J. McMahon Chai Lifeline, Inc., a Jewish non-profit charitable organization that has offices in New York City and Lakewood, New Jersey, and regional offices that serve all 50 states, has filed a lawsuit against the Township of Mahwah, the zoning board of adjustment, and the township’s former zoning officer. The nine count, 63-page complaint was filed by Marc E Liebman and Justin D Santagata, attorneys for the plaintiff, Chai Lifeline, Inc. The lawsuit is based on the zoning board’s July denial of a request by Chai Lifeline to overturn a former zoning officer’s determination that Chai Lifeline’s use of a single family home on river front property on Ramapo Valley Road is not a permitted use in that residential zone. The lawsuit challenges the board’s denial of a use variance application by Chai Lifeline to permit the organization to continue to use the property. Chai Lifeline is asking the court to reverse the board’s decision and declare the Chai Lifeline use of the property a permitted use in the R-80 zone. The plaintiff also wants the court to declare that the Chai Lifeline use is a pre-existing protected use if the township attempts to remedy the unconstitutional and invalidly enacted definitions of “single family dwelling” and “family,” and to restrain the township from citing Chai Lifeline for any violation of those definitions or from enforcing those definitions. The plaintiff is also seeking the award of nominal damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs of litigating the lawsuit. The Ramapo Valley Road property was donated to the non-profit organization in 2007 by Pamela and Craig Goldman. The land is located at the rear of a seven-lot subdivision and is accessed by a single private road that leads from a dual driveway access from Ramapo Valley Road to the property. The parcel has an in-ground pool and access to the Ramapo River, which passes by to the west. Since 2007, Chai Lifeline has been using this property as a short term, one family at a time, respite for families of children with cancer and other genetic diseases. Those who use the house come for several days during a week. The property is also used for groups of no more than 10 grieving widows for once a month grief counseling session, even though the former township zoning officer determined in 2009 that Chai Lifeline’s use of the 4.6-acre site for single families a few days at a time is not permitted by the township’s zoning ordinance. Chai Lifeline filed an application to the zoning board to appeal the former zoning officer’s interpretation of the zoning code, and to seek a use variance if the board upheld that interpretation. The zoning board held a public hearing of the bifurcated application over 14 public meetings. On Aug. 18, 2010, the board upheld the former zoning officer’s interpretation of the zoning code. After several more public meetings pertaining to the use variance application, the board voted on May 18, 2011 to deny a use variance to Chai Lifeline. The resolution that was subsequently passed by the zoning board on July 20, 2011 affirmed the former township zoning officer’s interpretation of the zoning code that Chai Lifeline’s use of the property did not fall within the township zoning code’s definition of “single family use” for the R80 zone in which the property is located. That resolution also denied an application by Chai Lifeline to obtain a use variance to continue using the property. The resolution explained that the existing and proposed use of the 4.6-acre residential lot is not a permitted use in the R-80 single family residential zone and that Chai Lifeline’s use variance application was denied because such a use variance would constitute a substantial impairment to the township’s master plan and zoning ordinance and the neighborhood and surrounding area, and there are no special reasons entitling the organization to the variances requested. Chai Lifeline claims in its lawsuit, however, that the zoning board violated the municipal land use law because the township did not refer the 1986 ordinance which rendered the current definition of “family” to the planning board for review. As a result, that definition of “family” is not the controlling definition. The non-profit organization claims the township has no legally valid definition of “family” and, because Chai Lifeline uses the property as a “single family dwelling,” it is a permitted use in the R-80 zone. Chai Lifeline claims the township’s interpretations of “single family dwelling” and “family” violated case law and ignored the legal precedent in the case law cited by Chai Lifeline, and the township failed to recognize that the principle on which they relied, i.e. length of residency, did not, and could not, determine whether a home was being used as a “single family dwelling.” In addition, Chai Lifeline argues that the zoning board’s denial violated the state constitution and the equal protection, substantive due process, and freedom of association clauses of the United States Constitution, and the commerce clause of the United States Constitution which they claim restricts states and their political subdivisions, such as municipalities, from discriminating against interstate commerce. Finally, Chai Lifeline claims the board’s action was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable because it violated: the New Jersey Land Use Law, the Civil Rights Act of the United States Constitution, the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act, and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.