Mahwah January 30, 2013 THE VILLADOM TIMES IV • Page 9 Judgment reserved on Chai Lifeline property use by Frank J. McMahon Following a Jan. 18 trial, Superior Court Judge Alexander H. Carver III reserved judgment on whether Chai Lifeline, Inc. should be allowed to continue to use a residential property in Mahwah as a family retreat house for its clients, families who have been affected by life threatening illness or recent loss, and for grief counseling. The trial was the result of a complaint filed by Chai Lifeline, Inc. against the Township of Mahwah, the zoning board of adjustment, and the former zoning officer. A former zoning officer found that Chai Lifeline’s use of a single family property in the R-80 residential zone on Ramapo Valley Road was not permitted, and the zoning board denied the non-profit Jewish organization’s subsequent use variance application. The property was donated to Chai Lifeline in 2007 by Pamela and Craig Goldman, and it has been used by the non-profit since then as a respite for families of children with cancer and other genetic diseases. Visitors stay there one family at a time for several days during a week. The house is also offered to groups of 10 or less widows for once a month grief counseling on weekends. Chai Lifeline wants the court to reverse the zoning board’s denial of its use variance application for the property, which is located at the rear of a seven-lot subdivision. The property is accessed via a private road that leads from a dual driveway off Ramapo Valley Road. The 4.58-acre property has an in-ground pool, remnants of a historic mill, and access to the Ramapo River. In court, Chai Lifeline attorney Justin Santagata moved for a summary judgment in the case. He claimed the zoning board violated the municipal land use law since the township did not refer the municipality’s 1986 ordinance, which included the current definition of “family,” to the planning board prior to its introduction. He claimed, therefore, that the definition of “family” is not the controlling definition in this case. The township’s zoning ordinance defines “family” as “a group of persons functioning as a single housekeeping unit and whose relationship is of a permanent, stable, and domestic character as distinguished from non-familial institutional uses (such as) boarding homes, fraternities, sororities, clubs, associations, transient housing, or other similar forms of housing.” The ordinance defines “single-family dwelling” as “a building occupied or intended for occupancy exclusively for one family or one household with two separate direct means of access to the outside and further provided with cooking, sleeping, and sanitary facilities for the use of the occupants of the unit.” Santagata claimed Chai Lifeline uses the property as a “single-family dwelling,” and that use is permitted in the R-80 zone, and the township’s interpretations of “singlefamily dwelling” and “family” violated case law and ignored the legal precedent in that case law. Carver denied the motion for summary judgment, saying the Supreme Court in 1986 had issued a decision that changed the legal definition of “family” and most towns were scrambling at the time to bring their ordinances in line with the Supreme Court’s decision. He agreed with Township Attorney Andrew Fede that it was not necessary that the ordinance be referred to the planning board for review. William Smith, the attorney representing several neighbors of the Chai Lifeline property, argued, nevertheless, that the definition of “family” is not an issue in this case. “This is a transient use and the intent of the Mahwah ordinance is to keep transient uses out of residential zones,” Smith said. “This is the worst property for this type of use,” Smith continued, arguing that Mahwah’s zoning ordinance specifically prohibits transient uses. He described the location of the property as unique for its privacy with a private road on a steep slope that makes it difficult for strangers to find any particular home there. He said when the neighbors of this property bought their homes they had the right to anticipate that the neighborhood would continue to be made up of single-family homes and not have one that is used like a “single-family motel” 365 days a year. “Why should this property owner have the right to use it (the property) as a motel?” Smith asked. “There is no justification for that type of use in a residential zone.” Smith also argued that the Chai Lifeline use of the property is not an “inherently beneficial use” because it does not benefit the whole community and the property is not (continued on page 17)