MAJOR COURT HEARING HELD ON LAWSUIT TO OVERTURN LAKEWOOD'S PLANS FOR DORMITORIES, WEDDING HALLS AND MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDINGS ON CROSS STREET

As first reported here on FAA News, ignoring heavy opposition from numerous neighbors, Lakewood's Township Committee in December 2024 adopted an ordinance to permit for more dormitories, wedding halls, and mid-rise residential apartment buildings to be constructed in the Township.

The neighbors, who are represented by Attorney Vincent J. DelRiccio, Esq. of the firm of R.C. Shea & Associates have filed a major lawsuit seeking to overturn the new ordinance.

Ocean County Superior Court Assignment Judge Francis Hodgson just held oral arguments on the lawsuit.

The ordinance creates a School Overlay Zone in the area generally located east of the Jackson Township/Lakewood Township border, northeast of Farady Avenue, west of Cross Street and south of Maplehurst Avenue.

The final version, which was adopted as Ordinance 2024 - 41 provides as follows:

Any school shall be permitted to construct and maintain primary use, stand-alone dormitories.

Schools shall further be permitted to construct residences for married students, staff, including teachers and administration affiliated with the school. Residences may include single family/duplex units and apartment buildings up to 65 feet high.

Wedding halls will also be permitted as an accessory use to a school provided that sufficient verification, documentation and professional testimony that adequate parking has been provided for - which shall be reviewed by the Planning Board at the time of application.

As previously reported here on FAA News, the 9-count complaint filed in New Jersey Superior Court in Ocean County asserts the ordinance is "inconsistent with the Master Plan, did not contain the clarity required of a land use ordinance, constituted an improper delegation of zoning power to the Planning Board, and violated other provisions of the Municipal Land Use Law (“MLUL”), including the MLUL’s prohibition against development moratoriums."

The complaint highlights that even the Planning Board agreed that many parts of Ordinance 2024-41 were confusing and unclear, specifying that it held contradictory standards for parking and acreage, and was “very vague."

In addition, the suit contends the Committee violated the Open Public Meetings Act by arbitrarily limiting the amount of time the neighbors could comment on this ordinance while, "later, at the same meeting the Committee allowed longer public comment for other issues aside from these Ordinances."

In addition to seeking to overturn the new ordinances, the lawsuit further seeks to recoup compensatory damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; counsel fees and costs of suit pursuant to the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, Procedural Due Process, and Substantive Due Process.

Township attorneys filed a motion to dismiss arguing it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The neighbors responded with a motion for summary judgment, seeking for the Ordinance to be voided.

Judge Hodgson held oral arguments on both motions last Friday and will be releasing a written decision in the coming weeks.

The neighbors are getting ready to appeal if Judge Hodgson upholds the ordinance.

To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.