Case set to go before a judge May 30.
By: Cynthia Koons
WASHINGTON A lawsuit filed by Upper Freehold residents that seeks to stop plans for the Matrix warehouse park in nearby Washington Township is set to go before a judge later this month if ongoing discussions don’t produce an out-of-court settlement first.
Judge Linda Feinberg is scheduled to hear the case Friday, May 30, in Trenton if a settlement is not reached.
The Upper Freehold residents filed suit against the Washington Township Planning Board and Matrix Development Group in November in order to block the construction of the warehouse park near where they live.
"We had settlement discussions (but) we were not able to reach an agreement on all of the issues at this point," said Jonathan Epstein, the attorney representing Matrix, on Monday.
The residents who are suing live in the Lynwood Estates development in Upper Freehold, across the street from where the proposed 5.58 million-square-foot warehouse project would be built.
In the residents’ suit, they alleged that they were not given due process in the public application process and that the Washington Township Planning Board acted arbitrarily in approving the project, Planning Board Attorney Mike Balint said.
The board approved the project in September, which consists of 99 percent warehousing and 1 percent office space. The zoning ordinance for that section of town required a "reasonable mix" of warehousing and retail commercial development. The Matrix application, according to the residents, does not live up to that standard.
Also included in the suit is an allegation that then-township mayor, Dave Fried, acted inappropriately in endorsing the project early on in the proceedings, said Stuart Lieberman, the residents’ attorney.
Mr. Epstein said Matrix has engaged in settlement discussions and is currently responding to a letter from Mr. Lieberman regarding an out-of-court resolution.
"(On behalf of Matrix) we have responded to a recent letter from their counsel and included, in our response, a detailed settlement proposal," Mr. Epstein said. "We are now waiting for a response from the residents."
He said he would not comment on whether the residents were requesting a financial settlement.
"Our settlement proposal does not include a payment to the residents," he said.
Mr. Lieberman said he prefers not to discuss settlement issues until a final decision is reached.
"Having done this since 1986, I believe that amicable resolutions between parties are always, always better than having a judge decide a case," Mr. Lieberman said. "Certainly I think my clients would elect to (settle out of court)."
If the case does go to trial, he said all the attorneys would have a chance to state their arguments before the judge.
"They call it a trial, but it really isn’t," he said. "It’s not a trial in the sense of jury and witnesses.
"We are completely prepared to go (to court)," Mr. Lieberman said. "We believe we have a very strong case. My clients were stepped upon in a very, very significant way by the Planning Board, which elected to ignore the law."
Mr. Balint, the board’s attorney, said he plans to rebut most of the residents’ arguments.
"We’re saying that we felt the Planning Board acted reasonably and consistently with the ordinance and wasn’t arbitrary," Mr. Balint said. "They conducted a thorough hearing and there was adequate opportunity for comment from the public. We felt it was a valid process."
He said he didn’t want to speculate as to how he thinks the judge will side in the case.
Mr. Lieberman said that in land-use cases, judges tend to make "hybrid" decisions. He hopes for a complete reversal of the approval.
"The relief that we’re seeking is that the approval be set aside (to) effectively reverse the decision of the Planning Board," he said.

