A three-judge panel of the New Jersey Appellate Division is set to hear oral argument next week in a closely watched appeal seeking to overturn the Lakewood Planning Board's site plan approval of Sunset Road Sefardic Congregation.
The appeals court has scheduled oral argument for Thursday, October 15, 2026, in New Brunswick.
Notably, the appeal has been assigned to a three-judge panel rather than a two-judge panel. The larger panel adds particular significance to next week's arguments: if the judges ultimately divide 2-1, the dissent would give the losing party an appeal as of right to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The appeal stems from the Planning Board's approval of plans for a proposed two-story synagogue of nearly 4,800 square feet, with neighbors challenging, among other things, the project's reliance on off-site parking at a nearby shopping center.
The architectural plans depict a main sanctuary of 2,900 sq feet as well as adjoining 748 sq feet cheder sheni on the first floor, as well as a 1,541 sq feet ezras noshim and 217 sq feet warming kitchen on the second floor.
Designing a sizable "cheder sheni" room next to the main sanctuary is a legal loophole to get away from parking requirements as the Township only requires parking on the main sanctuary room area and not on any "accessory rooms."
According to the shul's calculations, the 2,900 sq feet main sanctuary room requires 30 parking spaces.
The shul's professionals testified that they plan to provide only 2 parking spaces on-site, and to provide the remaining required parking spaces offsite at the shopping center to the southeast of the Sunset Road and James Street intersection.
The application was represented by Attorney Adam Pfeffer Esq. and Engineer Brian Flannery, who indicated that they have an agreement with the owners of the shopping center to utilize some of their parking spaces.
Numerous neighbors - represented by Teaneck Attorney Jan Meyer Esq. - voiced many concerns with the current ad-hoc shul, including substantial illegal parking, trash not being kept in the refuse container, as well as many members smoking close to their property line at all hours of the day and night.
Neighbors also emphasized that aside from just a shared parking plan, they also want to see a buffer plan to address their privacy concerns.
The neighbors also heavily objected to the proposed off-site parking plan, saying that many congregants will park on Sunset Road which is already congested. They added that the shopping center only appears to have unused parking spaces because Torah Umesorah has moved out and no new tenant has yet moved in.
In addition, the neighbors reminded the Board that, at the previous hearing, they told the applicant to supply the Board with a shared parking easement which can be recorded in the Ocean County Clerk's Office (so it can be enforced perpetually) and the applicant failed to supply this parking easement.
Mr. Meyer added that the Zoning Board's approval for the shopping center required 250 parking spaces and they did not provide any extras to now share with this shul. Additionally, a substantial number of these spaces have been converted into truck loading areas for NPGS, so the parking lot is actually deficient in parking.
Mr. Meyer added that the shopping center already has a long-term agreement with a nearby Yeshiva to utilize their parking lot, therefore it's not very likely that they have a sufficient number of parking spaces to now share with this shul.
The neighbors, represented by Mr. Meyer, subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the Board's approval. The Complaint avers the Board’s approval was "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable."
Following multiple adjournments while the neighbors attempted to negotiate a resolution with the shul, Ocean County Superior Court Assignment Judge Francis Hodgson ultimately upheld the Planning Board's approval. Attorney Jan Meyer, representing the neighboring residents, promptly appealed.
That appeal will now come before a three-judge Appellate Division panel on Thursday, October 15, in New Brunswick.
The three-judge assignment makes next week's proceeding particularly noteworthy. While the Appellate Division frequently hears appeals before two-judge panels, this case will be argued before three judges. And the composition could have consequences beyond the Appellate Division: should the ultimate decision include a dissent, the losing party would have the right to take the case directly to the New Jersey Supreme Court.
FAA News will be following next week's oral argument. A written decision from the Appellate Division will follow.
To join the FAA News community click here. It's a private group. No one will see your number.
No comments:
Post a Comment