A group of 13 White Street / New Egypt area residents have filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn Lakewood Township Planning Board's site plan approval for Kollel Kinyan Torah / Circle Time's child care center expansion, FAA News has learned.
Between the existing Circle Time center and the newly approved center, total capacity would be 600 children.
However, the neighbors complaint - filed in New Jersey Superior Court in Ocean County by Toms River Attorney Rob Shea Esq. - asserts the Planning Board’s approval was riddled with procedural flaws, jurisdictional oversteps, and inadequate public safeguards and must be overturned.
The story begins in early 2025, when Kollel Kinyan Torah Inc. submitted an application for preliminary and final site plan approval to build a daycare on the White Street / New Egypt Road property.
The plans required variances for building height - listed at 28 feet from the first floor but allegedly exceeding the 35-foot zonal limit when properly measured - and parking spaces, which fell short of requirements. Additionally, waivers were sought for tree spacing, solid walls for refuse enclosures, and buffers to adjacent homes.
As the application wound through reviews, tensions simmered. In January, a plan review meeting with the Board's engineer highlighted concerns: the submitted plans referenced a mysterious "Phase 2" involving parking expansions, yet provided no details. The Board engineer flagged potential height variances, noting the exposed basement could push the structure over limits, and questioned compliance with state daycare standards. By February, a review letter emphasized that the existing school on the lot made the daycare a second principal use, potentially requiring a "d" variance from the Board of Adjustment rather than the Planning Board. Public notices, meant to inform neighbors, were botched - listing the hearing at 231 Third Street while plans were viewable at 212 Fourth Street, and failing to disclose key variances for buffers and height.
The drama peaked at the April 1, 2025, public hearing. Expert witnesses for the applicant, including engineer Brian Flannery, testified that the building height was calculated from the "front" side, yielding a modest variance need. But plaintiffs' counsel, Robert C. Shea and planner Jeffrey Carr argued this was misleading: the ordinance defines height as the vertical dimension from the average elevation of the finished lot grade at the front of the building to the highest point of the roof deck. Measuring from the more exposed side, they claim, reveals a need for a far larger variance - up to 52 feet total, including a -14-foot exposed basement.
Public commenters like Levy Isaacson and Aaron Hirsch voiced fears of increased traffic, insufficient parking harming the neighborhood, and the "Phase 2" phantom adding uncertainty.
Despite these objections, the Board voted to approve.
The neighbors' lawsuit, filed as a complaint in lieu of prerogative writ, paints a picture of a rushed process marred by errors. Count II challenges the height approval, claiming improper calculations favored the applicant. Count III asserts the Board lacked jurisdiction, as combining a school and daycare on one lot demands a use variance only the Board of Adjustment can grant. Count IV details notice deficiencies that deprived the public of fair input, with emails bouncing between addresses and last-minute changes confusing stakeholders. Count V calls the decision arbitrary, as waivers for design elements like stormwater management and buffers were granted without sufficient testimony or evidence of hardship. Count VI argues the resolution itself is flawed, lacking specific findings of fact and conclusory language required by law.
Finally, Count I alleges the Board failed to maintain a clear record - no transcript was available, and the audio from the township's website was garbled, violating open public records laws.
For the plaintiffs, many living on nearby streets like Olive Court, White Street, and Legacy Court, this isn't just about a building - it's about preserving their neighborhood's character. "The Board's actions were capricious and unreasonable," the complaint states, highlighting how unaddressed issues could lead to undue burdens on adjacent homes.
The Complaint seeks vacatur of the Planning Board’s approval.
The Planning Board and Kollel Kinyan Torah Inc. have 35 days to answer the suit.
To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.
2 comments:
Building Torah on the neighborhood's cheshbon!
Why is it different than what BMG is doing to cederview?
Post a Comment