One of the most contentious land use applications in Lakewood is Yanky Lipshitz's Chestnut Holdings application.
Since June 2022, the project has been considered at two public hearings at the Zoning Board, two public hearings at the Planning Board, litigation in Superior Court, and then yet another four public hearings at the Planning Board.
The biggest issue of contention is that after the Planning Board denied the application in April 2024, in July 2024 the Board then suddenly rushed to change their vote to an approval.
The Board's approved version of the proposal is for 13 duplex units (26 dwelling units plus basement apartments, for a total of 52 duplex dwelling units) and a playground.
Aaron Hirsch, a resident of the Chestnut Street neighborhood, has just filed a major lawsuit seeking to overturn the Board's approval.
In what may be a first in Lakewood, the lawsuit also names Adam Pfeffer as a defendant and seeks to bar him from representing the developer in this litigation in court and also to be ordered to stop representing land use applications in Lakewood.
The complaint, which Aaron filed pro se, alleges 10 causes of action:
1) The Board's Approval Was Arbitrary, Capricious And Unreasonable Because The Approval Is Based On Scott Kennel's Inaccurate Letter To The DCA
The Board approved the application with a single mean of ingress and egress only based on the DCA's response to Scott Kennel. However, Scott Kennel's letter to the DCA inaccurately classified the site as multi-family development which the Board never reviewed or conceded. Had the Board's professionals written the letter to DCA as directed by the Board, likely the DCA's response would have been very different. As such, the Board's approval should not have been granted.
2) The Board's Approval Was Arbitrary, Capricious And Unreasonable Because The Board Chairman Held An Ex-Parte Discussion With The Defendant's Attorney
At the public hearing meeting on May 14, 2024, when the Board was scheduled to memorialize the Resolution of Denial, Chairman Moshe Neiman suddenly stated he wanted to change his vote to an approval. Pertinently, Mr. Neiman opened up the matter by saying, “I had a discussion with Adam today. After thinking about it I now realize that they were following the ordinances. There were no waivers and no variances.”
Mr. Neiman’s admission of his discussion with Mr. Pfeffer - which he admitted caused him to change his mind and vote to approve the application - was both ex-parte and a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act.
Moreover, despite that there may not have been a quorum of Board members who attended the ex-parte discussion with Mr. Pfeffer, Mr. Neiman intentionally avoided a quorum while, at the same time, essentially conducted business by reviewing the application.
3) Chairman Neiman Was Prohibited From Voting Due To His Ex-parte Discussion With Adam Pfeffer
The Board's denial of the application at the April 9, 2024 public hearing was by a 3 - 2 vote in favor of a motion to deny the application. Chairman Moshe Neiman was one of the “no” votes.
Following Chairman Neiman’s discussion with Mr. Pfeffer which was both ex-parte and in violation of the OPMA, the Board voted by a 3 - 2 in favor of a motion to approve the application. Chairman Neiman was one of the “yes” votes. Chairman Neiman's “yes” vote was prohibited from voting due to his ex-parte discussion with Adam Pfeffer regarding which Neiman admitted to being persuaded to change his mind. Chairman Neiman’s vote was therefore "tainted.”
Without Chairman Neiman’s vote there would not have been sufficient votes to approve the application.
4) The Board's Approval Was Arbitrary, Capricious And Unreasonable Because The Board Baselessly Changed Their Original Determination That The Site Plan Proposes 52 Units
At the March 28, 2023 and May 23, 2023 public hearings, the Board delved into the definition of a “unit,” and ultimately made interpretations that basements do count as separate units and therefore this site plan proposes 52 units (counting the basements).
At trial held on January 4, 2024, the Hon. Francis Hodgson agreed with the Planning Board's interpretation that the site plan proposes 52 units.
The Planning Board then changed their determination, claiming that this site plan does not propose 52 units - not because their original determination was incorrect, but because the Board was working to “push things through” for the applicant following Chairman Neiman’s admission of having an ex-parte discussion with Mr. Pfeffer which led Mr. Neiman to magically "determine" this to be a fully conforming application.
5) The Board's Approval Was Ultra Vires Because The Application Requires a Use Variance From The Zoning Board
The application requires a Density variance pursuant to 18-1014(A)(2) of the Lakewood Unified Development Ordinance. Accordingly, the Planning Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the application, making the Board's approval of the application improper, ultra vires the Board’s delegated authority, arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.
6) The Board's Approval Was Ultra Vires Because Statutory Notice Was Not Provided To All Property Owners Within 200 Feet
The applicant was required to send notice to 82 property owners. They only sent notice to 42 property owners.
7) Defendant’s Counsel Should be Sanctioned Pursuant to RPC 3.7
This unique cause of action asserts that Attorney Adam Pfeffer falsely and inaccurately testified at the public hearing that adequate notice was provided. Pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct, the complaint seeks to bar Mr. Pfeffer from representing the developer in this litigation in court and also to be ordered to stop representing land use applications in Lakewood.
8) The Board's Approval Was Arbitrary, Capricious And Unreasonable Because The Applicant Did Not Provide Sufficient Proofs For The Granting Of The Design Waivers
Despite Chairman Neiman’s assertions that the application is “fully conforming,” as noted by Board Engineer Terry Vogt, the application actually required two design waivers.
The applicant never explained the "undue hardship" required by the Township's ordinance to justify either waiver.
9) The Board Arbitrarily Limited Plaintiff’s Time For Public Participation
While the Planning Board does have the authority to limit the amount of time members of the public may present testimony, the Board may not limit such time against any one member of the public.
At the July 9, 2024 public hearing, Chairman Neiman told the plaintiff that he has "a minute and a half" to speak. Subsequent members of the public who testified on this very same application were given more time to speak.
The Board's actions in specifically limiting plaintiff's public participation was arbitrarily, capricious, and unreasonable.
The Board's arbitrary decision was done at the very meeting in which the Board was rushing to “any which way, quickly and quietly” approve the application. The actions in specifically limiting plaintiff's public participation was done in order to limit exposure of opposition to a site plan which the Board was urging to approve. The connection here only makes the Board's actions even more arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.
10) Because Issues Outside The Administrative Record Are Presented, The Plaintiff Is Entitled To Discovery In This Matter
Complaints in lieu of prerogative writ challenging the actions of a land use board typically are not provided a period of discovery. In this case, however, due to Mr. Neiman's admission of an ex-parte discussion with Mr. Pfeffer after which he rushed the Board to change the vote, discovery should be permitted to obtain depositions upon oral examination of Mr. Neiman and Mr. Pfeffer as well as to issue subpoenas as to their written communications.
The suit demands judgment voiding the Board's approval of Application SD 2553; vacating the July 9, 2024 Resolution of Approval; for costs of suit; and for any further relief as set forth by the court.
The Planning Board and developer have 35 days to answer the complaint.
To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.
5 comments:
Aaron Hirsch is doing the right thing by standing up for his neighborhood and holding the planning board accountable. It takes courage to challenge a system when something doesn’t seem fair, especially when it affects your own neighborhood. By filing this lawsuit, Aaron is making sure that the process stays transparent and that everyone follows the rules. Development is important, but it shouldn’t be approved without proper oversight and consideration of community concerns. The application should only move forward if it's handled fairly and within the guidelines set to protect the neighborhood.
Highly doubt that he can get Pfeffer banned from appearing before the lakewood board but that would be a huge win for the people of lakewood.
It is well known that Pfeffer is someone that makes the lawyer stereotypes look tame—he's a total sleazeball.
Adam is as shticky as it g
Aaron Hirsch is doing the right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! חזק וברוך
BRAVO AARON HIRSCH!!!!!
Taking the fight directly in to the swamp. Very few have the courage to do this and putting their name on this like you have done for the public. Blessed are you.
Hope the court sanctions lying Pfeffer, his actions are outrageous. To think that Pfeffer's firm is the Lakewood Prosecuter, is proof to the level of corruption here, from the Mayor to the committee all the way down to these Lakewood land use boards.
Why is the planning board attorney John Jackson allowing Pfeffer to continue to conduct business as usual in front of the planning board, pending these fraud charges he committed while presenting applications at the board?
We know what Adam lied, no need for a court decision to determine if he lied. The planning board has the receipts and can make it's own determination if Adam lied to their face or not.
Adam should be banned at the Lakewood boards and lose his MUA Attorney contract. We can't have liars and fraudsters representing the Lakewood taxpayers for Lakewood. We need change in Lakewood and the Vaad appointed puppets, AKA, designated elected officials in this town that are not doing anything to help the residents of Lakewood.
We know the MUA head Justin F wont cancel his childhood friend Adam Pfeffer's MUA attorney contract. Justin is so conflicted, BTW, he is no longer a resident of Lakewood and shouldn't be seated on any of our Lakewood boards. We've seen what he's done to Lakewood, he's dangerous to us.
Enough already!!
Post a Comment