Mahwah November 28, 2012 THE VILLADOM TIMES IV • Page 7 Trial of Chai Lifeline suit postponed again by Frank J. McMahon The trial of the lawsuit Chai Lifeline, Inc. filed against the Township of Mahwah, the zoning board of adjustment, and the former zoning officer, has been postponed until January 18, 2013. The suit concerns the zoning board’s May 2011 denial of Chai Lifeline’s application for a use variance to permit the Jewish non-profit charitable organization to continue to use a single-family residential property on Ramapo Valley Road as a respite for families of children with cancer and other genetic diseases who stay there one family at a time, for several days during a week. Chai Lifeline also offers the house to groups of 10 or less grieving widows for once a month grief counseling on weekends. The trial was originally scheduled for Oct. 12, but was postponed to Nov. 16. According to Ben Cascio, the zoning board attorney, the trial has again been rescheduled, although motions for summary judgment by both sides are scheduled to be heard on Dec. 7, according to the Civil Case Management Division of Superior Court in Hackensack. Summary judgments are designed to effect a prompt disposition of controversies on their merits without resorting to a lengthy trial if one or both parties feel there is no real dispute as to the salient facts in the case, or if only a question of law is involved. Judge Alexander Carver III is scheduled to hear the arguments in the summary judgment motions in December. Unless a summary judgment is granted that would negate the need for a trial, he will conduct the trial on Jan. 18. Chai Lifeline is seeking to have the court reverse the zoning board’s denial of its use variance application for property it owns at the rear of an eight lot subdivision in the township’s R-80 single-family residential zone. The subdivision is accessed by a single private road that leads from a dual driveway access from Ramapo Valley Road. The property has an in-ground pool and access to the Ramapo River, which passes by to the west of the site. The property is still being used seven days a week by Chai Lifeline despite the objections of Timothy Slade and other neighbors of the property, who strongly objected to Chai Lifeline’s use of the property during the zoning board’s public hearings in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Slade asked the township through its attorney to issue a cease and desist order, but the township has taken no action on that request. The property, which was donated to Chai Lifeline Inc in 2007 by Pamela and Craig Goldman, has been named the Pamela & Craig Goldman River Retreat. It has been used by the non-profit organization since then even though a former township zoning officer determined in 2009 that its use of the 4.4-acre piece of property for single families a few days at a time is not permitted by the township’s zoning ordinance. The zoning board denied an appeal of that determination by the Chai Lifeline organization in August 2010 after a 16-month public hearing. During the appeal of the former zoning official’s determination that the use was not permitted and the public hearing of the application for a use variance, several of the neighbors of the property claimed Chai Lifeline’s use of the site disturbed their quality of life and brought a constant flow of strangers to the secluded neighborhood. In the nine count, 63 page complaint filed by Chai Lifeline, Inc., however, the organization’s attorneys, Marc E Liebman and Justin D Santagata, claim the non-profit organization’s use of the property is an inherently beneficial use. They dispute the zoning board’s definition of “family” as one that is made up of permanent residents of a single family household. The attorneys also dispute the board’s determination that its use was transient in nature and they maintain that its use is permitted in the R-80 zone. They also claim the township’s interpretations of “single family dwelling” and “family” violated case law and ignored legal precedent. In addition, they claim the township failed to recognize that the length of residency principle on which they relied did not, and could not, determine whether a home is being used as a single-family dwelling and that its denial was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. In his formal answer to the lawsuit, Cascio denied the allegations made by Chai Lifeline and specifically denied that the families who use the Chai Lifeline property constitute a “family” within the meaning of the township’s zoning ordinance. He also described the narratives in the lawsuit by some of the people who have stayed at the Chai Lifeline house as irrelevant and “intended to improperly prejudice the court,” harass and cause unnecessary delay, and create a needless increase in cost of preparing the zoning board’s defense in violation of the law. Cascio claims in his response that the testimony of Chai Lifeline’s professional planner, who testified that the Chai Lifeline use was inherently beneficial use, did not satisfy the criteria to grant a use variance and the board did not find that testimony credible. He asked the court to dismiss the Chai Lifeline complaint with prejudice, meaning that the same complaint could not be filed again, and to grant the zoning board the costs of the lawsuit and other relief as the court deems is equitable and just.