JUST IN: AARON HIRSCH FILES MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEY ADAM PFEFFER

Aaron Hirsch, flying pro se, has just taken a new step in his lawsuit challenging Lakewood Planning Board’s approval of Chestnut Holdings: he filed a motion to disqualify Adam Pfeffer, Esq. from serving as counsel for Chestnut Holdings. 

The motion contends that Mr. Pfeffer improperly acted as both advocate and witness on a contested issue of fact.

Chestnut Holdings is one of the most contentious land use applications in Lakewood.

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, the Board then changed their vote in July 2024 to an approval - following Neiman’s public concession to having an off-the-record discussion with Pfeffer.

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.

As the news was broken here on FAA News, back in September 2024, Aaron Hirsch, a resident of the Chestnut Street neighborhood, filed a major lawsuit seeking to overturn the Board's approval.

The complaint, which Aaron filed pro se, includes the following 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

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) 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.

8) The Board Arbitrarily Limited Plaintiff’s Time For Public Participation

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.

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.

As previously reported here on FAA News, Ocean County Superior Court Assignment Judge Francis Hodgson in June 2025 ruled the lawsuit may proceed, over Pfeffer’s motion to dismiss the Complaint on multiple procedural grounds.

As previously reported here on FAA News, Judge Hodgson last month granted Hirsch’s motion to add an additional allegation into the complaint.

As previously reported here on FAA News, Judge Hodgson more recently allowed Hirsch to serve written interrogatories to question Chairman Neiman over the specifics of his off-the-record discussion with Pfeffer.

Hirsch has just slammed down a motion to disqualify Pfeffer from continuing to represent Chestnut Holdings in this litigation.

The basis of the motion is that a neighbor testified at the July 9, 2024 public hearing that they did not receive legal notice of the hearing as required. In response, Pfeffer testified that legal notices were mailed out as required. This testimony induced the Board to vote to approve the site plan application.

A subsequent review of the Affidavit of proof of notice submitted by Pfeffer’s office however, appears to indicate that notice to 82 property owners was required and they only sent notice to 42 property owners.

"Mr. Pfeffer’s statements were testimonial in nature, addressing disputed factual issues, and materially influenced the Board's decision to proceed despite objections that notice was deficient...

"Mr. Pfeffer’s statements to the Planning Board regarding the sufficiency of legal notice were factual in nature, directed at a core issue in this case, and contested both at the time and in this litigation.

"Mr. Pfeffer is now the only person who can explain or rebut the factual basis of his representations to the Board and of his private discussions with the Chairman. This makes him a necessary witness on those disputed facts. Continued dual roles as counsel and witness violate RPC 3.7 and prejudice both the plaintiff and the integrity of these proceedings," the motion filing stresses.

The motion requests that the Court enter an Order disqualifying Mr. Pfeffer from further representing Chestnut Holdings in this litigation and in any future hearings related to this application before the Planning Board.

Judge Hodgson is likely to hold oral arguments on the motion in the coming weeks.

To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.