Ocean County Superior Court Assignment Judge Francis Hodgson has just set a trial date for a lawsuit which seeks to overturn the Lakewood Planning Board’s approval of Sunset Road Sefardic Congregation's Site Plan application.
The revised Site Plan presented to Board at the final public hearing in December 2023 was for the construction of a proposed two-story synagogue, almost 4,800 sq feet in area. The architectural plans depict a main sanctuary of 2,900 sq feet as well as adjoining 748 sq feet cheder sheni on the first floor, as well as a 1,541 sq feet ezras noshim and 217 sq feet warming kitchen on the second floor.
Designing a sizable "cheder sheni" room next to the main sanctuary is a legal loophole to get away from parking requirements as the Township only requires parking on the main sanctuary room area and not on any "accessory rooms." The neighbors highlighted this issue to the Board. However, the Board responded that their hands were tied. The neighbors are now taking this issue to court.
According to the shul's calculations, the 2,900 sq feet main sanctuary room requires 30 parking spaces.
The shul's professionals testified that they plan to provide only 2 parking spaces on-site, and to provide the remaining required parking spaces offsite at the shopping center to the southeast of the Sunset Road and James Street intersection.
The application was represented by Attorney Adam Pfeffer Esq. and Engineer Brian Flannery, who indicated that they have an agreement with the owners of the shopping center to utilize some of their parking spaces.
Per the Board Engineer's review, the application required variances for Aggregate Side Yard Setback, maximum Building Coverage, Buffer, and Parking Setback.
Additionally, the revised plans propose the parking lot only 2 feet from the front right-of-way line. This conflicts with most of the proposed Shade Tree and Utility Easement. Therefore, a design waiver was required from proposed street tree spacing since they can only be planted near the property corners.
Importantly, the application also sought a design waiver from providing the required 20 foot buffer on each side. The application sought to provide a 0 foot buffer.
Numerous neighbors - represented by Teaneck Attorney Jan Meyer Esq. - spoke up, saying that they have many concerns with the current ad-hoc shul, including substantial illegal parking, trash not being kept in the refuse container, as well as many members smoking close to their property line at all hours of the day and night.
Neighbors also emphasized that aside from just a shared parking plan, they also want to see a buffer plan to address their privacy concerns.
The neighbors also heavily objected to the proposed off-site parking plan, saying that many congregants will park on Sunset Road which is already congested. They added that the shopping center only appears to have unused parking spaces because Torah Umesorah has moved out and no new tenant has yet moved in.
In addition, the neighbors reminded the Board that, at the previous hearing, they told the applicant to supply the Board with a shared parking easement which can be recorded in the Ocean County Clerk's Office (so it can be enforced perpetually) and the applicant failed to supply this parking easement.
Mr. Meyer added that the Zoning Board's approval for the shopping center required 250 parking spaces and they did not provide any extras to now share with this shul. Additionally, a substantial number of these spaces have been converted into truck loading areas for NPGS, so the parking lot is actually deficient in parking.
Mr. Meyer added that the shopping center already has a long-term agreement with a nearby Yeshiva to utilize their parking lot, therefore it's not very likely that they have a sufficient number of parking spaces to now share with this shul.
Mr. Meyer presented his Professional Planner Joe Vince.
Mr. Vince testified to the Board that the Township's ordinance specifically reduces the maximum building coverage for shuls from what is permitted for houses. He stated that this suggests that the governing body was specifically concerned with the neighbors very concerns of privacy and breathing space, and accordingly, the Board should not approve the requested variances.
Mr. Vince added that the requested side yard setback variance will also be a detriment to the neighbors.
Importantly, Mr. Vince highlighted that there are c(2) variances being sought in this application, and, with respect to a (c)(2) application, the Supreme Court has stated in Kaufmann v. Planning Bd. for Warren, "no c(2) variance should be granted when merely the purposes of the owner will be advanced. The grant of approval must actually benefit the community in that it represents a better zoning alternative for the property. The focus of a c(2) case, then, will be not on the characteristics of the land that, in light of current zoning requirements, create a "hardship" on the owner warranting a relaxation of standards, but on the characteristics of the land that present an opportunity for improved zoning and planning that will benefit the community."
In other words, the Board can only grant the variances upon a finding that the benefit for the community substantially outweigh any detriments. In this case, the neighboring community have clearly voiced the substantial detriments regarding the application.
Mr. Meyer closed off by saying, "the site simply doesn't fit the proposed Site Plan. The shul can buy any larger property in the area. It's unfair to throw this down the neighbors throats and tell them that if they are unhappy then they should be the ones to move."
Board Attorney John Jackson Esq. thanked Mr. Vince "for making good arguments and standing his ground despite the hostile environment."
Mr. Pfeffer told the Board that they want an approval on the specific design plan, however, they would agree that there would be no simcha hall, no Kollel or daytime learning, they would ask the congregants not to smoke near the neighbor's doors, ask the Township for no parking signs in front of the neighbors homes, install a fence around the property, and replace as many trees as they can.
Addressing the neighbors substantial concerns, the Board demanded more concessions. After deliberating considerably, the Board ultimately approved the application with the applicant agreeing to revise the plans to show a 20 foot buffer on each side, submit a parking easement agreement to the Board, somehow address the neighbors concerns regarding the smoking, and all of the conditions which Mr. Pfeffer previously agreed to.
The Board's approval came after their third contentious hearing on the application.
Curiously, while Mr. Pfeffer represented to the Board that "the shul is anyways already here in the current building," the Rabbi of the shul admitted to the Board that the proposed Site Plan "will double the size of the existing shul."
The Rabbi also made things more contentious when he testified, "it stinks to live next to a shul."
As previously reported here on FAA News, the neighbors, represented by Mr. Meyer, filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Board's approval. The complaint lists a number of issues which were brought to the attention of the Planning Board members, who ignored the issues.
The 5 count Complaint seeks judgment reversing the decision of the Planning Board, as set forth in the Resolution, to deny any and all variances requested by the defendants; attorney's fees; costs of suit; as well as for such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
At a case management conference just held on the case, Judge Hodgson set the trial date for January 10, 2025. All parties will submit trial briefs prior to that date.
Mr. Meyer has a strong track record of successfully getting approvals from Lakewood's land use boards reversed in court.
To join a FAA News WhatsApp Group, click here.
To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment