Back on September 8, 2025, Chestnut Capital 7, LLC presented an application to the Lakewood Zoning Board for approval of a duplex in the Vermont Avenue area. The block is currently vacant and the nearest duplexes are about 500 feet away.
The subject property is located in the B-5 (Highway Business) Zone where duplexes are not a permitted use. The developer therefore sought use and bulk variance relief to permit construction of two identical duplex residential dwellings, each approximately 2,000 square feet.
Aaron Hirsch, a resident of the area, testified in vehement opposition to the requested use and bulk variance relief.
Board Member Moish Lankry agreed, stating "this area looks like a single family house area and its one of the last untouched spots in Lakewood. If we approve this it would change the entire area."
Board Member Moshe Ingber echoed his words, stating "this is just a spot lot that they are plopping down a duplex."
Board Member Judah Ribiat agreed that he would like to see single family houses in this area, not duplexes.
The Board then voted overwhelmingly to deny the duplex. Attorney Adam Pfeffer representing the developer acknowledged the Board’s concerns and stated "the applicant would agree to construct a single family house instead of the duplex."
It seems the developer is now seeking "backsies." Mr. Pfeffer on Wednesday filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Board’s denial.
"In denying the application, the Board abused their authority; their decision on the application presented was contrary to the applicable law; and was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and otherwise wrongful. The Resolution of denial further fails to satisfy N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10(g)," the complaint in lieu of prerogative writs asserts.
The lawsuit requests that the Court reverse the Board’s decision, remand with instructions to grant the requested relief, and award such other relief as is just and equitable.
Immediately upon seeing the new court filing, Mr. Hirsch filed a Motion to Intervene in the case.
Hirsch’s Certification states:
"I appeared at the public hearing held before the Zoning Board of Adjustment on September 8, 2025, and provided sworn testimony in opposition to Plaintiff’s application for use and bulk variance relief. My testimony addressed, among other things, the negative impacts of the proposed duplex use on the surrounding neighborhood, including issues of compatibility, intensity of use, and detriment to the existing character of the area. The Zoning Board considered... my testimony, in reaching its decision to deny the application.... If Plaintiff succeeds in this action, the denial of the use variance will be reversed or vacated, and the proposed duplex use may be approved.
Rule 4:33-1 requires intervention as of right where the applicant:
● claims an interest relating to the property or transaction at issue;
● is so situated that disposition of the action may impair that interest; and
● the interest is not adequately represented by existing parties.
Hirsch’s motion brief asserts this case meets all three elements.
"Although the Zoning Board nominally defends its Resolution, its role is institutional and governmental, not personal.
Mr. Hirsch:
● has personal property and neighborhood interests at stake,
● may emphasize factual and contextual impacts that the Board chooses not to highlight, and
● does not have confidence that the Board will fully or vigorously defend the denial."
A decision on the motion is expected in the coming few weeks.
Hirsch - a longtime advocate at Lakewood's land use boards - is no stranger to the court room. Hirsch previously - pro se - sued the Planning Board to overturn their approval of Chestnut Holdings. Judge Hodgson held a trial over 13 weeks ago. A written decision is soon expected. Additionally, Hirsch has a pending case in the Appellate Division seeking to overturn the Zoning Board’s use variance approval for a residential apartment complex on Route 70.
To join the FAA News community click here. It's a private group. No one will see your number.
No comments:
Post a Comment