An Ocean County Superior Court judge has denied a lawsuit seeking to halt a Jackson Township Planning Board approval for a proposed yeshiva, ruling that the challenge was premature and failed to meet the legal standard for emergency relief, TLS has learned.

Judge Francis R. Hodgson Jr. rejected an application by Jackson resident Chris Podolski that sought to block the project pending further environmental review by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Podolski, who lives near the proposed campus planned for Frank Applegate Road, had argued that the planning board acted improperly by approving the development before DEP jurisdictional determinations regarding wetlands, flood hazards and water quality were finalized.

In his ruling, Hodgson found that the plaintiff did not demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits, both of which are key requirements for the issuance of temporary restraints under New Jersey law.

The lawsuit challenged the planning board’s approval, contending that the board relied on incomplete or speculative environmental information and should have delayed action until DEP reviews were complete. Podolski further alleged that the approval created a misleading public record suggesting that no flood hazard or Category One waterway issues were present.

Attorneys for the township, the planning board and the property owner countered that environmental permitting falls squarely within the DEP’s jurisdiction and that local land use boards are permitted to grant approvals conditioned on obtaining outside agency permits. They also argued that objections related to DEP determinations must be raised through the state’s administrative appeals process, not through an emergency court application.

Hodgson agreed, noting that municipal planning boards have long been authorized to approve applications subject to conditions, including future compliance with state and federal agency requirements. He further found that the plaintiff retained an adequate legal remedy through a traditional prerogative writ challenge once a final resolution is adopted by the board.

The judge emphasized that no memorializing resolution had yet been issued by the planning board, undercutting the request for immediate judicial intervention. While acknowledging the plaintiff’s concerns, Hodgson ruled that the case did not warrant extraordinary relief at this stage.

The order denying the application leaves the planning board’s approval vote intact, subject to required environmental permits and future legal challenges through established appeal channels.