As first reported here on FAA News, ignoring heavy opposition from numerous neighbors, Lakewood's Township Committee in December 2024 adopted a duo of ordinances to permit for more dormitories, wedding halls, and mid-rise residential apartment buildings to be constructed in the Township.
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.
Within the School Overlay Zone:
- 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.
Alongside the creation of the School Overlay Zone, the Township Committee also adopted another Ordinance creating the Newport Road Joint Venture. The Joint Venture is purportedly a group of developers in this area. The goal is for them to join in paying to pave and extend two new public roadways and install potable water and public sanitary sewer facilities.
The two ordinances work in tandem in that "no new approvals in the School Overlay Zone will be heard and no Temporary Certificate of Occupancy nor Certificate of Occupancy resulting from a new application will be granted until sewer and water infrastructure is installed and there is a total of 3 means of egress (e g., Franklin, Newport and Maplehurst or Brush) from the School Overlay Zone."
The Joint Venture ordinance also requires the residential neighbors to chip in for the costs of the road and utility improvements for the new School Overlay zone. Pertinently, the Ordinance grants authority to the developers to require the neighbors to chip in - a yet indeterminate amount of money.
Numerous neighbors, represented by Attorney Vincent J. DelRiccio, Esq. of the firm of R.C. Shea & Associates, voiced opposition to the duo of ordinances to both the Township Committee and the Planning Board.
As previously reported here on FAA News, back in January 2025, Mr. DelRiccio filed a major lawsuit seeking to overturn the new ordinance.
The 9-count complaint in lieu of prerogative writ 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 to seeking to overturn the new ordinances, the lawsuit further seeks to recoup compensatory damages; pre- and post-judgment interest; vounsel fees and costs of suit pursuant to the New Jersey Civil Rights Act, Procedural Due Process, and Substantive Due Process.
At a hearing held before Ocean County Superior Court Assignment Judge Francis Hodgson on June 19, 2025, Township attorneys argued that the arguments were unripe, as the Township had not yet signed a Developer’s Agreement with the Joint Venture developers and the future agreement. In response, on July 7, 2025, Judge Hodgson ruled that the neighbor's complaint was not yet ripe, however he also stayed the Ordinances until such time as said Developer’s Agreement was entered into.
"To avoid prejudicing residents before enforcement mechanisms are clearly defined, and given the Ordinances’ severability clause, the Court severs the provision rendering them effective immediately. The Ordinances shall not take effect until the agreements are finalized, providing Plaintiff the opportunity to review and appeal within the appropriate time limits," Judge Hodgson wrote.
On November 17, 2025, the Township adopted and signed the Developers Agreement, which placed the Ordinances back into effect.
In response the neighbors have just returned to court.
"The Developers Agreement indicates that the Developer itself has appointed three unnamed individuals to “act as the deciding factor on questions or decisions for this joint venture project,” and to “make decisions on formula calculations, oversight on budget and financing, and any other concerns that may come up from the developer, and any JV member.” The Developer’s Agreement further authorizes the above-referenced board, comprised of three individuals hand-picked by the Developer, to have final say on any and all issues a member of the public may have as it relates to either Ordinance. The Developer’s Agreement further provides a calculation for the reimbursement of approximately $15 million to the Developer for the improvements they wish to undertake pursuant to the Ordinances. The calculation is based upon the total area of the overlay zone district; however, the total area is not included in the Developer’s Agreement, the Ordinances, the Resolution adopting the Developer’s Agreement or seemingly any other document," the just filed Complaint avers.
As to the Joint Venture developers agreement, "the Ordinances permit a group of individuals, hand-picked by the Developer, to wield absolute authority in all questions related to the Ordinances and the methods by which the Developer assesses the public for its costs," the suit adds.
As to the School Overlay Zone, "zoning ordinances are required to be clear and explicit so as to prevent arbitrary enforcement. Ordinance 2024-41 contains vague and contradictory language and as such, is unlawfully vague, permitting, “wedding halls, simcha halls, or other such facilities,” without providing what “other such facilities” are. Ordinance 2024-41 further does not contain a parking requirement for the above, ill-defined facilities, but instead gives the Planning Board the power to determine if the suggested facility has “adequate parking.” The residential bulk standards of Ordinance 2024-41 contained within Section 11 do not match the ones for schools “with or without housing” that are set forth in Section 6, despite Section 6 making a direct reference to Section 11 and the standards contained therein.
"Ordinance 2024-41 permits banquet halls as accessory uses to schools in the School Overlay Zone. Banquet halls are not permitted accessory uses to schools in the underlying residential zones which the School Overlay Zone covers. As for the parking requirements associated with banquet halls, Ordinance 2024-41 cites to Lakewood Unified Development Ordinance (“UDO”) § 18-906-I(1)(a). UDO § 18-906-I(1)(a) specifically indicates that the parking requirement for banquet halls associated with school applies only to schools in non-residential zones.... None of the underlying zones are non-residential. As such, Ordinance 2024-41 is not consistent with the Master Plan. The Committee neither recognized the inconsistency nor did they adopt a statement of reasons as to why they adopted an ordinance that was inconsistent with the Master Plan.
"Under the MLUL, the zoning power of a municipality is vested with the governing body. Ordinance 2024-41 is a zoning ordinance. Ordinance 2024-41 contains a provision in Paragraph 5(b) whereby parking standards are to be determined by the Planning Board. Furthermore, Ordinance 2024-41 contains various internal inconsistencies as to the bulk requirements, parking, and lot size requirements of the School Overlay Zone that they are impossible for a Planning Board to apply and require the Planning Board to exercise zoning power to determine the standards. As such, Ordinance 2024-41 constitutes an illegal delegation of zoning power from the Committee to the Planning Board," the complaint alleges.
The complaint demands judgement overturning the Ordinances; Compensatory damages; Pre and post-judgment interest; Attorney’s fees and costs of suit; and Such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable and just.
The Township has 35 days to respond to the Complaint.
To join the FAA News community click here. It's a private group. No one will see your number.
1 comment:
Call Jackson council. It's time to move to Jackson.
Post a Comment