A dispute over a local zoning ordinance permitting catering facilities and banquet halls as accessory uses to schools in non-residential zones has resulted in a series of legal challenges, with courts ultimately siding with township officials and planning authorities. The case involves a property owner who claimed the new rules would increase traffic congestion and were inconsistent with the township’s planning goals.
The complaint was filed by 1650 Corporate Road West, LLC, a property owner in Lakewood Township’s M-1 industrial zone, against the Township Committee of Lakewood and the Lakewood Planning Board. The appeal was heard by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, under Docket No. A-4035-23. Oral arguments took place on February 25, 2026, with a decision issued on March 30, 2026.
According to court documents, the controversy began when the Township Committee proposed Ordinance 2022-046. This ordinance allows catering facilities and banquet halls as accessory uses within school buildings located in non-residential zones if certain parking requirements are met. The plaintiff attended multiple public meetings about the ordinance and submitted letters objecting to its adoption. In one letter dated October 20, 2022, counsel for the plaintiff wrote that the ordinance “would create havoc” for properties in the M-1 industrial zone because “[t]he area [wa]s already plagued by heavy traffic congestion and rampant unapproved street parking from the banquet halls already in existence.”
The legal filings detail that both public notice requirements and opportunities for public comment were provided before adopting the ordinance. Notices about meetings were published in newspapers such as The Star-Ledger and Asbury Park Press. Meetings were held virtually or offered virtual participation options due to technological advancements allowed under state law.
Plaintiff’s objections included claims that virtual meetings violated open meeting laws (OPMA), that there were conflicts of interest among committee members voting on the ordinance, insufficient notice of amended versions of the ordinance, failure to provide personal notice required by law for zoning changes, arbitrary time limits on public comments at meetings, and alleged inconsistencies between the new rules and Lakewood’s master plan.
The planning board reviewed whether allowing banquet halls as an accessory use was consistent with existing land use policies. According to meeting minutes cited in court records, it was noted that “the Board has frequently in the past made a determination that a banquet hall [wa]s …an accessory use to a school,” particularly given their role in hosting events associated with religious or private schools.
After considering public input—including expert testimony from planners retained by both sides—the board concluded that while concerns about parking remained significant, recognizing banquet halls as an accessory use was not inconsistent with established planning objectives. Recommendations were made to revise parking ratios upward for such facilities.
When adopting amendments based on these recommendations—such as limiting permitted locations to non-residential zones only—the township committee stated at its December 8, 2022 meeting: “We have revised the [O]rdinance to include pertinent suggestions… Parking ratio presently provided for at facilities already being used for banquet halls in town… This is now detailed in revisions.”
Despite continued objections from plaintiff’s counsel regarding process and substance—including claims about lack of definitions for ‘catering facility’ or ‘banquet hall’—the amended ordinance passed final reading after further public comment.
Subsequently, on January 25, 2023, plaintiff filed a fifteen-count complaint challenging both procedural aspects (such as adequacy of notice) and substantive elements (such as alleged inconsistency with master plan) of how Ordinance 2022-046 was adopted. After initial motions and amendments expanding claims against both defendants—the Township Committee and Planning Board—multiple rounds of summary judgment motions followed.
In orders dated October 17, November 17, January 19 (2024), and July 9 (2024), trial judges dismissed all counts raised by plaintiff either through summary judgment or after bench trial review of documentary evidence alone. Among other findings:
– The court found notices about meetings were properly published according to statutory requirements;
– Virtual meetings did not violate OPMA since state law defines meetings as including gatherings via communication equipment;
– Amendments made during adoption did not substantially alter original intent or scope so as to require republication;
– Claims regarding conflicts of interest lacked sufficient basis;
– Time limits on public comments were not arbitrary or capricious;
– Personal notice provisions did not apply because no fundamental change occurred to zoning classifications affecting plaintiff’s property;
– Challenges alleging improper reorganization or untimely actions failed due to expiration of statutory deadlines (forty-five days) for filing such complaints.
On appeal before Judges Mayer, Paganelli, and Jacobs sitting per curiam at the appellate division level—all lower court orders dismissing plaintiff’s claims were affirmed. The panel reviewed statutory interpretations de novo but found no error warranting reversal: “We are satisfied…the judge properly dismissed count seventeen as untimely under Rule 4:69-6… Further we reject plaintiff’s assertion…”
Attorneys involved included Robert C. Shea (R.C. Shea & Associates) representing appellant; Robin La Bue (Rothstein Mandell Strohm Halm & Cipriani) representing respondent Township Committee; Jilian McLeer (John J. Jackson III & Associates) representing respondent Planning Board; along with John J. Jackson III listed as counsel on briefs.
The case is identified under Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division Docket No. A-4035-23.
