Chai Lifeline Variance Request Denied

The ongoing request by Chai Lifeline for a zoning variance for the Pamela and Craig Goldman River Retreat at 1058 Ramapo Valley Road has reached its conclusion. 

After three years of ongoing testimony, the Zoning Board of Adjustment voted 5-1 to deny the “D” Variance request. 

At the last meeting, on May 4, testimony was finally concluded.  Left for completion were one motion from each lawyer, and closing summations.

Board Chairman Charles Rabolli began by approaching the unfinished motions.  Marc Leibman, representing Chai Lifeline, had previously made a motion to have planner Michael Kauker’s testimony stricken, as he felt that it was lacking in drawing anything but speculative conclusions.  William Smith, attorney for resident Mary Grob, argued that Kauker is a planning expert, and his testimony was on point.  Chairman Rabolli agreed that Kauker’s credentials were acceptable, and his testimony would stand.

Smith’s motion that Board Planner Joseph Burgis’ testimony be stricken, due to his relationship with Leibman’s firm, was also denied. Chairman Rabolli said Burgis has long worked for the Board, and has unquestionable credentials, and denied the motion.  He did, however, state that in the future the board will ask for disclosures to avoid a similar issue.

During the public comments, Chairman Rabolli admonished the public to remember that this was their chance to sum up and make statements on evidence already entered, and that they could add nothing new that was not already on the record.

Leibman offered an objection to this part of the proceedings for the record.  He felt it would give an unfair opportunity for residents to rehash points long ago made, and a back-door opportunity to slip in new information.

The residents that spoke made lengthy arguments, only once or twice being stopped either by an objection from Leibman, or a warning from Board Attorney Ben Cascio that they had crossed the line and had to cease their line of thought. 

Resident Timothy Slade offered up a two-part argument as to why the variance should be denied. Slade provided “six proofs” he felt showed that the use did not meet the Municipal Land Use Law requirement of being “inherently beneficial,” as well as not being a suitable site.

Attorney William Smith made his closing statements, going over the lack of proof in meeting the Municipal Land Use Law requirements, the testimony of his witnesses, citing other relevant cases with regards to the oft-discussed transient housing argument, and refuting Burgis’ recommendations and testimony.  One of his most common threads was the protection of the existing residences.

Attorney Marc Leibman made his final statements, arguing that Chai Lifeline’s request met the requirements to show proof that the retreat is “inherently beneficial”, and that this was an argument that broke down to the classic notion of NIMBY – Not In My Back Yard. He concluded by stating that he was working for Chai Lifeline free of charge.

During the work session, Rabolli, and Cascio went over how the board had to analyze whether the application met the requirements necessary for a “D” variance, as per the Municipal Land Use Law section 40:55D.

Board members Whitman and LaForet said that while the space may be “inherently beneficial” to those who use it, the Chai Lifeline does not meet those requirements for Mahwah or for the state of New Jersey.

As to the suitability of the site, Board member DeSilva agreed that while the site is idyllic and peaceful and well suited for this use, getting to the site alone was a problem. Board member Kazmarsky agreed, and also pointed out that parking was a potential issue, as was the lack of appropriate handicap access. Board member Salvino noted that the home was at the end of a private driveway, and did not appear on a map as such.

Cascio brought up the easement with regards to the shared road, and made note of the fact that the current road does not, in fact, align with the easement. This, too, was a part of suitability.

Chairman Rabolli, who said he could see arguments for both sides, but, after hearing from the rest of the council, called for a motion from someone to deny the variance on the ground that the necessary special reasons had not been established.  LaForet made the motion, which was seconded by DeSilva.

The vote was 5-1 to deny the variance, Chairman Rabolli being the loan vote of descent.

While the matter of the use of the Craig and Pamela Goldman River Retreat by Chai Lifeline may be concluded with regards to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, legal actions may still continue.  The applicant can appeal to the Mayor and Council, or even file a lawsuit on this issue.

The next meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment is scheduled for June 1.