.jpg)
In a major upset to neighbors and commuters, the New Jersey Appellate Division on Friday morning issued a decision approving Yeshiva Chemdas Hatorah's project to construct 125 duplex homes plus basement apartments on the northeast corner of Cross Street and James Street, FAA News reports.
The appeal panel affirmed Ocean County Superior Court Assignment Judge Francis Hodgson's ruling which overturned the Lakewood Planning Board's earlier denial of jurisdiction in the matter, which, at the time stalled the project.
Application SD 2511, filed under the name Yeshiva Chemdas Hatorah (but owned by Mr. Dachs) seeks approval to build a brand new residential development at the 17.5 acre parcel on the northeast corner of Cross Street and James Street with 125 duplex homes plus basement apartments.
That is 250 families, and approximately 500 cars.
This zoning district does not permit duplexes. However, as previously explained in a full background story here on FAA News, the developer is relying on a loophole ordinance the Township Committee adopted in 2018 which permits applicants who previously filed a complete application for a planned educational campus to resubmit and apply for duplexes.
At their public hearing on the application, held in December 2022, the Planning Board delved deeply into the nuanced wording of the 2018 ordinance, ultimately determining that the application didn't comply with the 2018 ordinance and therefore they lacked jurisdiction to hear the new application for duplexes.
Subsequently, in February 2024, as previously reported here on FAA News, the developers of Yeshiva Chemdas Hatorah filed a lawsuit seeking to reverse the Board's denial.
As previously reported here on FAA News, back in October 2024, Judge Hodgson agreed with YCH Attorney John Doyle who focused heavily on a letter penned by Planning Board Administrator Ally Morris in April 2018 deeming the application administratively complete despite the Yeshiva ignoring her demand for proof of accreditation as required under the Planned Educational Campus ordinance.
"It is this Court’s conclusion that this supplemental review letter by Ms. Morris constitutes a certification that all checklist items were complied with," Judge Hodgson wrote.
As previously reported here on FAA News, back in November 2024, the Board filed an appeal from this ruling.
"Substantially, the application was never considered complete because the Planning Board issued a memorandum indicating that essential documents, additional information, and a revised site plan set were required from the plaintiffs after the plan review meeting took place and prior to the public hearing being scheduled," the appeal appeal brief asserts.
"Plaintiffs' application could never have been deemed complete, as their Planned Educational Campus lacks the required accreditation. Regardless of whether or not accreditation itself is technically listed in the checklist requirements for completeness, the fact remains that the application was not bona fide, as the applicant did not pursue it after being provided with a list of still-needed necessary items at the plan review meeting and lacked the necessary accreditation. Additionally, when the applicant’s representative Rabbi Pruzansky was invited to provide an explanation, he failed to attend the meeting," the brief adds.
Judges Currier and Jablonski were unimpressed.
"An application is considered "complete" according to the Lakewood Unified Development Ordinance when all escrow deposits have been paid and all checklist requirements have been satisfied. In this case, YCH did not submit the required certification evidencing accreditation. However, as the trial court correctly recognized, the MLUL expressly prohibits deeming an application incomplete due to the absence of additional information not specified on the municipal checklist. Furthermore, both parties agree that Morris deemed the application complete without requesting proof of accreditation.
"Therefore, since the checklist requirements were met and the procedural obligations for the application were fulfilled, the strict provisions and plain language of the MLUL supports the trial court's determination that the application is complete.
"We affirm the trial court's decision that the Campus Application was complete and to remand the case to the Board to consider substantively the Residential Application in light of that determination," wrote the Appellate panel.
The Board did not formally seek a stay Judge Hodgson's ruling during the pendency of this appeal, therefore the Board considered the site plan on its merits, and, as previously reported here on FAA News, back in March 2025 the Board overwhelmingly denied the site plan. Judge Hodgson subsequently reversed the Board’s denial on the merits.
Had the Appellate Division today overturned Judge Hodgson's ruling and found the Board does lack jurisdiction then the developer's attempts to toss the Board’s denial of the merits of the site plan would become moot.
The Board is still within statutory time to file a Notice of Appeal from Judge Hodgson's decision on the merits of the application, although it is highly unlikely the Appellate Division would overturn such decision. Therefore, today's decision is likely the end of the road for the years-long legal battle.
The neighbors did bring a lawyer to the Planning Board's public hearings but not to the ensuing court battle.
To join the FAA News community click here. It's a private group. No one will see your number.
No comments:
Post a Comment