By KENNY WALTER
Staff Writer
OCEAN TOWNSHIP — Objectors to a proposed Jewish college on Logan Road continued to oppose the application in the first of two court-ordered hearings to conclude the controversial application.
Paul Ricci, a planner representing a group of residents opposing the proposal, testified that application would have a negative impact on adjacent properties during a special April 5 Ocean Township Zoning Board of Adjustment hearing.
“I do not believe this application should be approved because it has a substantial detriment to the community as a whole and surrounding the residential community,” Ricci said. “It is clearly inconsistent with your intent and purpose of your zoning.”
On March 17, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey ordered two additional hearings with several time and procedure stipulations after attorneys representing Yeshiva Gedola Na’os Yaakov filed suit against the Ocean Township Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Ocean Township Council on Jan. 8 after the board rejected the application in December.
The suit cites a civil rights violation and discrimination after the board rejected the application in December for a 96-student Jewish university on Logan Road when the applicant opted not to seek a time extension, which forced the board into a vote before testimony concluded.
The 11-count lawsuit cites a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), a violation of First and 14th Amendment rights, a violation of the Fair Housing Act and discrimination.
The plan called for the renovation of a former elementary school building on 2.9 acres at 1515 Logan Road, between Park Boulevard and Grassmere Avenue, and its conversion into a two-story, live-in dormitory for 96 male students, ages 18-22.
Under township ordinances, post-secondary religious schools are prohibited throughout the entire town.
The applicant sought several variances, including a use variance and a parking variance.
Ricci said the application could easily be revised to decrease the number of students permitted, which in part will decrease parking requirements and have a less intense impact on neighboring residents. He also suggested the applicant revise the application by restricting hours of the study hall and to change the windows closest to residents to limit noise and light concerns, as well as establishing a better buffer from adjacent properties.
Ricci said the township ordinances involving density in the zone are already allowing a fair amount of students, particularly for a boarding school.
“For boarding facilities, your zoning essentially allows for double what’s for single family homes, so I think it is very generous for population density and they are looking for double that,” Ricci said. “So, I believe that your zoning is more than reasonable as it is and the doubling of that is just too intense at such a close proximity.”
He also said part of the application includes self-enforcing various rules including a prohibition on cars and smoking for students.
“Of course, most troubling about this application is the enforcement is mostly on the [applicant],” Ricci said.
While residents continue to oppose the proposal, board attorney Mark Steinberg explained that because of the court decision the role of the zoning board has changed.
“Unfortunately, this matter has become more than a zoning matter,” he said. “The applicant is seeking a substantial damage reward, as well as attorney fees and costs, which will also be substantial if the applicant is successful.”
Steinberg said under most appealed zoning board rejections, the board is presumed correct, but with a challenge involving RLUIPA that is no longer the case.
“Contrary to what the board is usually charged with, it makes a substantial difference in what the board members must weigh with the testimony and make a decision,” Steinberg said.
However, Ricci said the board should not weigh the religious aspect of the application, but rather view the use from strict zoning and impact on residents’ point of view.
“I don’t believe this application is about religion, it is about intensity and the age and ability to control individuals that could potentially turn into a college,” he said. “It is guised as a religious application — my points are related to what I just pointed to.”
The board unanimously ruled against the Yeshiva’s application on Dec. 1 after developers opted not to seek a time extension to extend the hearings further, which forced the board into a vote.
Residents have vehemently opposed the project since hearings began in 2014, with many citing noise, safety and traffic concerns associated with the proposed use.
In the past 25 years, the 2.927-acre site has been used as an elementary day Yeshiva and a boarding school for high school students.
The next hearing is scheduled for April 25, and the board must vote on the application by midnight to be in compliance with the court ruling.
