The legal battle over a proposed duplex development in Lakewood’s Chestnut Street area just escalated dramatically.
Superior Court Judge Francis Hodgson has granted resident Aaron Hirsch’s motion to intervene in the lawsuit filed by developer Chestnut Capital 7, LLC, allowing Hirsch to formally participate in the case and help defend the Lakewood Zoning Board of Adjustment’s denial of the project.
Following oral argument before the court, Judge Hodgson ruled that Hirsch had a sufficient interest in the matter to participate in the litigation alongside the Zoning Board.
Within days of securing intervenor status, Hirsch, who is representing himself pro-se, filed a 17-page motion to dismiss the developer’s lawsuit, arguing that the complaint fails both procedurally and substantively.
Back on September 8, 2025, Chestnut Capital 7, LLC applied to the Lakewood Zoning Board for approval to construct two identical duplex residential dwellings, each approximately 2,000 square feet, on a vacant parcel in the Chestnut Street area. The property sits in the B-5 (Highway Business) Zone, where duplex housing is not a permitted use. The developer therefore sought use and bulk variance relief.
During the hearing, Aaron Hirsch, a nearby resident, appeared and delivered sworn testimony strongly opposing the application.
Several Board members echoed those concerns.
Board Member Moish Lankry remarked:
> “This area looks like a single family house area and it's one of the last untouched spots in Lakewood. If we approve this it would change the entire area.”
Board Member Moshe Ingber similarly observed:
> “This is just a spot lot that they are plopping down a duplex.”
Board Member Judah Ribiat agreed, stating he would prefer to see single-family homes in the area rather than duplexes.
The Board ultimately voted 4-3, which under New Jersey law is insufficient to grant a use variance, resulting in denial of the application.
Attorney Adam Pfeffer, representing the developer, acknowledged the Board’s concerns during the hearing and even stated that the applicant would consider constructing a single-family home instead of the duplex.
Despite that concession, the developer later filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs seeking to overturn the Board’s denial.
The lawsuit claims:
> “Despite uncontroverted expert testimony and a Motion to approve this application, the Board denied the application by a vote of four (4) to three (3), failing to obtain the five (5) affirmative votes to grant the use variance.”
The complaint further alleges the Board’s decision was:
> “arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and otherwise wrongful.”
The suit also asserts that the Board’s resolution allegedly failed to satisfy N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10(g).
The developer asked the court to reverse the Board’s decision and remand the matter with instructions to grant the requested relief.
Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, Hirsch moved to intervene under Rule 4:33-1, arguing that the outcome of the case directly affects his neighborhood and property interests.
Judge Hodgson agreed, granting the motion following oral argument.
Hirsch has now escalated the fight by filing a 17-page motion to dismiss the complaint.
Hirsch’s motion argues that the lawsuit fails at its most basic level because the developer never alleged the core requirement for obtaining a use variance for a non-inherently beneficial use: demonstrating that the property is “particularly suited” for the proposed use. Under New Jersey land-use law, applicants seeking a use variance must show not merely that their proposal is desirable or supported by a planner, but that the specific parcel is uniquely appropriate for the use in a way that justifies departing from the zoning ordinance. Hirsch’s motion states that the complaint “contains no allegation that the subject property is particularly suited for duplex residential development,” which is a fundamental element of the statutory variance test.
Instead, the developer’s lawsuit relies heavily on its planner’s testimony referencing the Township’s Master Plan. Hirsch’s motion argues that this is legally insufficient. While a Master Plan may express general planning policies, it does not override the zoning ordinance and does not itself establish entitlement to a use variance. As the motion puts it, reliance on broad planning goals “does not substitute for the required showing that the property itself is particularly suited for the proposed use.” Because the complaint never alleges facts satisfying that requirement, Hirsch argues the lawsuit “facially falters from the outset” and should be dismissed before the case proceeds further.
According to Hirsch, even if the planner’s testimony were accepted as true, it would not require the Board to approve the application.
The motion also argues that the complaint suffers from several procedural defects. Hirsch contends that while the lawsuit repeatedly asserts that the Board’s resolution is “contrary to applicable law,” it never identifies which findings in the resolution are legally deficient or how the Board allegedly misapplied the governing standards. The motion further points out that although the developer asks the Court to change “the decision” of the Zoning Board, the complaint curiously never seeks to vacate the Board’s formal Resolution of denial — the document that actually embodies the Board’s action under the Municipal Land Use Law. In addition, Hirsch notes that the complaint was filed without the certification required by Rule 4:69-4, which mandates that plaintiffs confirm they have ordered all necessary transcripts of the land-use hearing before bringing a prerogative-writ challenge. According to the motion, these deficiencies provide an additional basis for the court to strike or dismiss the complaint.
Judge Hodgson will now consider Hirsch’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which could potentially end the case before it proceeds to a full review of the zoning record.
If the motion is denied, the case will move forward as a traditional prerogative-writ appeal, where the court will review whether the Zoning Board’s denial was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
For now, however, Hirsch has succeeded in becoming a formal party to the case — and has launched an aggressive legal challenge aimed at stopping the developer’s attempt to overturn the Board’s decision.
Hirsch has become a familiar presence at Lakewood’s land-use boards and in the courts.
He previously filed a lawsuit challenging a Planning Board approval involving Chestnut Holdings.
Hirsch also has a pending appeal before the Appellate Division challenging the Zoning Board’s approval of a large 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