LAKEWOOD'S SUNSET ROAD SEFARDIC SHUL SEEKS POSTPONEMENT OF TRIAL TO OFFER SETTLEMENT TO NEIGHBORS



Just weeks ahead of 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 shul has requested a two month adjournment to offer the neighbors a settlement, FAA News has learned.


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.


Just ahead of the scheduled trial, the shul has requested a two month adjournment to attempt to settle the neighbors' concerns. The neighbors have cosented to the adjournment request.


To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.



17 comments:

Anonymous said...

They had years to work something out.
Instead they tried shoving their application down their neighbors throat and only when they felt there was a chance they would lose did they say lets work something out...
Only after they cost the neighbors tens of thousands of dollars in their fight to live as residents in a residential neighborhood and fear they may lose do they want to come to a settlement.
Makes you wonder... What type of people are they...
Clearly not the type to be good neighbors...

Common sense said...

They want their prayers to be accepted with the bad blood and how the disrespect to the neighbors. I saw how they were so disrespectful to the neighbors attorney at the hearing where they were supposed to be quiet. I can only imagine in person at the shul how disrespectful they are to their neighbors. At the planning board hearing there were pictures presented of during davening times cars parked on lawns and all over the place, a complete mess. Seriously?

Derech Eretz kodma Letorah! How worthy are prayers after disrespecting the neighbors and hurting them in the name of your prayers. Let that sink in, because Yom Kippur does not forgive deeds between people.

Find a place that can handle a shul and don't just shove it into the innocent neighbors face. You guys have enough money to pay for it, but would rather hurt people and be cheap just not to pay to purchase properties that can fit a shul the size which you want & need.

ab said...

What has Lakewood come to, where frum people are opposing shuls.

Anonymous said...

the mispallelim of this shul are grand idiots . So much money down the drain on a fight that any same person would tell you they would have lost

Anonymous said...

@anoymous said.....
everything you wrote is not true, They have been trying everything they can to make a agreement the past few years, and this situation is different than many other shuls the Rabbi clearly understands the predicament, but also needs a place for his congregants to daven, its a difficult situation, I live next door to a Shull it isn't the best situation being that they don't even daven the same nussach, but the Rabbi is very respectful and a nice man and you have to think about the inconveniences as a honor and btw......this whole campaign feels a little racist, if it was a Ashkenaz shul it would have been built years ago.....

Anonymous said...

The frum people are not opposed to schuls. They are opposed to the location. It's ok to have a little quality of life.

Anonymous said...

Everything I wrote is true
I know the intimate details.

Let me give you an example.
They said at the planning board they would agree no kollel.
So one would think if you want to make it work you would tell the neighbors to show you our good intentions we will stop the kollel now.
Did they?
No!!
The idea that you are gonna build a nice big shul and attract more people to move to the neighborhood and not provide any parking or want to have any buffers respected is not called working something out. It is called we will do it whether you like it or not. As a pretense we will meet and say how can we make it good but without any plans of doing anything to actually make it good.

Anonymous said...

Not opposed to shuls. Opposed to shuls in their yard…

Anonymous said...

For a little history here:
The shul was renting the house they are in now for a bit.
While renting they knew things were not smooth with the neighbors.
They then made the decision to buy the house knowing there were issues…
Now they say we are here so what should we do.

Anonymous said...

First, the Rabbi leading this project is a truly saintly figure who has spent years working hard to support and protect the neighborhood, often behind the scenes. He and the community have made every effort to accommodate the one neighbor who has raised concerns, and they’ve even gone to great lengths to address potential issues before starting the building process.

The main goal here is simple: the Kollel and Shul just want a place to pray. If there were any other feasible options, they would have taken them. They’re not trying to inconvenience anyone, just to meet the religious needs of the community. The arguments being raised—such as concerns about parking during Chanukah—are not as clear-cut as they seem. The same neighbor who raised these concerns attends a Shul with limited parking, and it often overflows all the way to James Street.

It’s frustrating to see a community project that is trying to do things the right way being vilified. It’s clear that the Kollel is doing everything it can to be considerate of everyone in the neighborhood, even when it may require some small adjustments. This is a community that is built on respect and mutual support, and it’s important we continue to approach these situations with that spirit in mind.

Let’s all keep in mind that the Kollel and Shul are here to help the community grow stronger, and their only intention is to provide a dedicated place for davining, study, and connection.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line is that they are trying to build a very large shul with no parking on a block situated in the middle of two houses—not on a corner lot, but right in the middle of the block. While it’s true that the rabbi is an incredible and respectable person, this proposal is akin to trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Simply put, this shul does not fit there.

You may argue that they are trying to be considerate of everyone, but the reality is they are attempting to force a shul into a location that clearly cannot accommodate it. Regarding the shul that the concerned neighbor currently attends, it’s completely unrelated to this discussion. In fact, it serves as a cautionary tale that underscores why the neighbors have valid concerns.

When that shul was initially built, there wasn’t parking overflowing all the way to James Street. Over time, as more people began using that shul, the parking situation worsened. The same thing is bound to happen here, and the neighbors have every right to be concerned about it.

This doesn’t even touch on the noise issues late at night—which, by the way, still persist—or the other ongoing problems that come with trying to shoehorn a shul into an inappropriate location.

Anonymous said...

"It’s frustrating to see a community project that is trying to do things the right way being vilified"

Just curious.
Did they ask a shaila if they can try and build like this despite the neighbors objections?

What defines this as the right way?
Did they agree to make concessions? Say only cover 25% of the square footage of the property (as is legally allowed for a shul in this neighborhood)?
Or say to respect the buffers?
Or address the noise issues the neighbors have been having?

Anonymous said...

yes they did ask, and these noises you keep talking about do not exist. you & I know that, I get it its hard the neighbors moved to Lakewood years ago and now the towns changing, change happens.......what I could say is that there is a home that seems to be used for other purposes a few doors down, owned by.........and maybe that's where the trash and noise is coming from, #openYourEyes

Anonymous said...

"I'm willing to bet that, if the neighbors had asked in the beginning, the shul would Have had possibly reimbursed them to insulate their home and add new windows, and that would take care of the noise, which, by the way, does not come from the shul. The traffic from the shul that the neighbor attends comes from their simcha halls. Most members regularly pray there, and there are locals who walk there. This shul will not be having a simcha hall, so I don’t know what type of tall tale you’re telling yourself."

Anonymous said...

lol
Live in the dark if that’s what helps you sleep at night.

Anonymous said...

Who did they ask?
And how was the question framed?

Anonymous said...

The bottom line is unless you hear both side sides from each respective party you only know half of the