After pulling their Jewish card, Lakewood developers Denton Holdings, LLC (the Registered Agent on file for this company is Dudi Zions) has just settled a lawsuit against the Jackson Township Zoning Board.
The settlement will provide the developer with a not-yet-disclosed monetary lump sum settlement amount, FAA News has confirmed.
Denton Lane is located in the Township’s RG-2 Regional Growth Zone which permits detached, single-family developments in this zone as a conditional use. The Township's ordinances do not regulate lot coverage or building coverage on single-family lots within this zoning district.
Denton Holdings intended to develop a 21 single-family lot subdivision.
In 2019, they submitted an application to the Township's Zoning Board for a conditional use variance as their application did not meet all of the bulk requirements for the conditional use and sought deviations for lot depth, lot width and lot frontage. This application was bifurcated, meaning that they were first seeking use variance approval which would be followed by, and conditioned upon, a separate subdivision approval.
At their public hearings for their Conditional Use Variance there was discussion between the Board and Denton's planner, Ian Borden, PP, and attorney, Adam Pfeffer, Esq., regarding the design of the homes to be constructed.
Mr. Borden told the Board that he did not yet design the subdivision and he did not yet discuss with the developer the specific sizes of the homes, however "a typical subdivision would include two story houses with a building area of 2,500 to 3,000 square feet to accommodate 4 to 5 bedrooms."
Mr. Pfeffer expressly stipulated that "for all of those things we would come back before the site plan so the Board would have an opportunity to see and review all those designs."
On October 16, 2019 the Board granted the conditional use variance. The Board's Resolution of Approval does not stipulate any express limitation that those houses would be no larger than 3,000 square feet with five bedrooms.
Subsequently, in late 2020, the developer returned to the Board with a Subdivision application. That application proposed homes of up to 5,000 sq feet to accommodate an average of 6 bedrooms.
The Board insisted that this design was larger than what was represented to them during the Use Variance hearing, and ultimately they denied the Subdivision application.
On March 5, 2021, represented by Attorney Matthew Fiorovanti Esq., Denton Holdings filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Board's denial.
The 5 count Complaint in Lieu of Prerogative Writs focused mainly on allegations that the denial was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, which is the "standard" way of seeking judicial review of Board action.
At trial, Judge Marlene Ford agreed and vacated the Board's denial, finding that the Township's zoning ordinances do not restrict the number of bedrooms or square footage of the size of single family homes in this zone, therefore the Board's condition on this aspect was inappropriate.
Things took a dramatic change in course on April 28, 2023, when Denton Holdings amended their Complaint, seeking to "supplement their legal theories for the recovery of such monetary relief" - by playing the Jewish card.
Mr. Fiorovanti wrote:
Plaintiff, whose principals are Orthodox Jews, sought to subdivide a parcel in order to construct a housing development.
Consistent with its well-established pattern of anti-Semitic decision-making, the Board unlawfully denied the application after Plaintiff refused to agree to limit the size of the homes to a maximum of 5 bedrooms.
The reason for the Board’s insistence on such limitation - which does not exist under any Township ordinance - was obvious: the Board, aware that Orthodox Jewish families are typically large and typically reside in homes that can accommodate such large families through a larger number of bedrooms, wished to prevent Orthodox Jewish families from moving into the Township.
Given that there is no objective requirement relating to bedroom numbers, no other conclusion can be drawn. Indeed, this is not the first instance in which Defendants have been accused of being motivated by religious and racial animus towards Orthodox Jews in connection with land use applications.
Following the institution of this action, the court entered partial final judgment in favor of Plaintiff, concluding that the Board’s denial of the subdivision application was improper. Yet while Plaintiff has finally obtained subdivision approval, Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages as a result of the delay which has resulted from the Board’s wrongful denial. Given the amount of time that has passed since the initial wrongful denial of the application, Plaintiff lost the ability to obtain needed sewer capacity. Plaintiff is now forced to attempt to purchase such capacity when it would have otherwise been available had its subdivision application been properly granted.
Moreover, the interest rates have increased significantly, and the overall economic conditions have been much more volatile, which has caused Plaintiff to incur substantial economic damages.
The filed amended complaint highlights front and center that "upon information and belief, Defendants were aware that it was likely that Orthodox Jews would be the purchasers of the homes in the proposed development. Indeed, Orthodox Jews have been purchasing homes in the Township in growing numbers in recent years. It is estimated that there are approximately 3,000 Orthodox Jewish families and 15,000 residents residing in the Township at the present time.
"Numerous lawsuits have been brought against Defendants arising from Defendants’ misconduct in delaying and thwarting land use applications for the development of homes to be purchased by Orthodox Jews. Defendants understood that Orthodox Jews would be the likely purchasers of the homes in Plaintiff’s proposed development, and consistent with their prior misconduct in delaying and thwarting similar land use applications, took steps to delay and thwart Plaintiff’s subdivision through the imposition of a legally non-existent and discriminatory maximum-bedroom limit."
The 8 count amended complaint alleges Violation of Conditions of Court Orders Affirming Compliance and Granting Repose and Immunity From Builder’s Remedy Litigation; Violation of RLUIPA - The Board denied the subdivision application because it did not wish to allow large families that would result in Orthodox Jewish families moving into the Township. A such, the Board premised its denial of the subdivision application on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the non-existent representation regarding the maximum size of the homes. The Board’s denial of the subdivision application constitutes the imposition or implementation of a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution in violation of RLUIPA; Violation of Fair Housing Act; Violation of Equal Protection Clause – Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; Violation of Substantive Due Process – Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; Violation of Equal Protection Clause – New Jersey Civil Rights Act; Violation of Substantive Due Process – New Jersey Civil Rights Act; and Violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
The amended complaint demands judgment against the Zoning Board awarding compensatory and consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial; Treble damages; Punitive damages; Attorneys’ fees; Vacating the Court’s Judgment of Compliance and Repose; Authorizing the filing of a builder’s remedy litigation against the Township; Costs of suit; and For such other relief as may be just and equitable.
Following the filing of this amended complaint, the developer served subpeonas on the individual Board members. In addition to seeking the deposition of the individual Board members, the Subpoenas also required each individual Board member to produce certain documents.
Mr. Fiorovanti wrote that the Subpoenas were served "to confirm the unlawful bias expressed towards Plaintiff during the application process."
Several months ago, the developer sought a court order to enforce the Subpoenas and compel the depositions of the individual Board members.
While the motion filing remained pending, the Board consented to engage in mediation with Retired Judge Frank A. Buczynski.
Following an all-day mediation just held with Judge Buczynski, the parties have agreed to settle the matter whereby the developer "will receive a monetary lump sum settlement amount, without any admission of liability as to any allegation by the Township or Zoning Board."
To join a FAA News WhatsApp Group, click here.
To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment