Save Lebanon Township

04/21/2026

𝐍𝐎𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐄: 𝐍𝐀𝐑 “𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐋” 𝐓𝐈𝐌𝐄 𝐎𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐔𝐑𝐒𝐃𝐀𝐘 𝐇𝐀𝐒 𝐁𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐃.

The “trial” on count VII of NAR’s lawsuit against the Lebanon Township Zoning Board will take place at 𝟐:𝟎𝟎 𝐩.𝐦. on Thursday, April 23, 2026, before the Honorable William G. Mennen. This is a change from the original scheduled time of 10:30 a.m. on that date.

Count VII of NAR’s complaint alleges the Zoning Board did not properly interpret the Township’s zoning ordinance when it determined that NAR’s proposed ma*****na production and processing facility at 62 Anthony Road is not a “farm.”

The hearing will be held in Courtroom #304 in the Somerset County Courthouse, 40 North Bridge Street, in Somerville. Parking is available in the immediate area. https://en.parkopedia.com/parking/building/somerset-county-courthouse-somerset-nj/?arriving=202604211700&leaving=202604211900

𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝!

04/16/2026

𝐍𝐀𝐑 𝐋𝐀𝐖𝐒𝐔𝐈𝐓 𝐆𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐎 “𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐋” 𝐍𝐄𝐗𝐓 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊

A major milestone in the lawsuit by the Nar Group, Inc. (“NAR”) against the Lebanon Township Board of Adjustment (the “Zoning Board”) is scheduled for next week. At 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 23, 2026, the Honorable William G. Mennen will conduct a “trial” on count VII of NAR’s complaint, which alleges the Zoning Board did not properly interpret the Township’s zoning ordinance when it determined that NAR’s proposed indoor ma*****na production and processing facility is not a “farm.”

This will not be a trial in the usual sense of a presentation of evidence through witnesses and exhibits. Instead, Judge Mennen will hear oral argument from counsel for all parties and will decide the issue based upon the record made by the Zoning Board and the briefs previously submitted. The court may or may not rule at the conclusion of the arguments. It is possible Judge Mennen will reserve any decision until he prepares a formal written opinion.

Although there are other counts in NAR’s complaint that have not yet been dismissed, Count VII (the “farm issue”) is the central point of contention remaining in the case.

𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐈𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐦 #𝟑𝟎𝟒 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞, 𝟒𝟎 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭, 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞.

11/03/2025

𝐄𝐋𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐃𝐀𝐘 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐎𝐌𝐎𝐑𝐑𝐎𝐖
𝐁𝐄 𝐒𝐔𝐑𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐆𝐄𝐓 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐕𝐎𝐓𝐄

𝐋𝐞𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝!

10/28/2025

𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐍𝐄𝐖𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐎𝐑 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐓'𝐒 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐋 𝐎𝐅 𝐍𝐀𝐑'𝐒 "𝐇𝐄𝐌𝐏 𝐂𝐀𝐒𝐄" - 𝐦𝐲𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐣𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐲.𝐜𝐨𝐦

10/24/2025

𝐍𝐀𝐑 “𝐇𝐄𝐌𝐏 𝐋𝐀𝐖𝐒𝐔𝐈𝐓” 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐁𝐘 𝐍𝐉 𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐎𝐑 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐃 𝐍𝐀𝐑 𝐋𝐀𝐖𝐒𝐔𝐈𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊 𝐓𝐎 𝐁𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐑𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐎𝐔𝐓

Late this afternoon, William G. Mennen, Judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, issued an Order dismissing (with prejudice) NAR’s “Hemp lawsuit” against the Lebanon Township Mayor and Committee. This lawsuit was an effort by the NAR Group, Inc. (“NAR”) to do an “end run” around the Board of Adjustment’s 2024 denial of NAR’s applications to establish a ma*****na production and processing facility at 62 Anthony Road. This lawsuit was separate and distinct from NAR’s SLAPP lawsuit, which was thrown out by the New Jersey Appellate Court earlier this week. A story on that case was covered on the front page of the Courier News on October 22, 2025.

In the “Hemp lawsuit” NAR claimed that their proposed facility was exempt from the Township’s site plan requirement because it allegedly wanted to “grow h**p” in the building, and “h**p is a legal crop.” NAR’s thinly veiled scheme was to get its “h**p farm” up and running without site plan approval (or any opportunity for the public to object) and then argue to the court that it could be converted to ma*****na production with no Township approvals required.

Thankfully, the Township Committee told NAR that site plan approval was required by the nature of the proposed facility and its use, regardless of the so-called “crop” to be produced and processed inside. That decision by the Township Committee was the target of NAR’s attack in this lawsuit.

The court’s ruling for the Township means that if NAR 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 wants to produce and process h**p in the same facility that it proposed to use for ma*****na, NAR has to get the same zoning approval. This would require applying to the Planning Board or the Board of Adjustment, in which case NAR would face the same opposition from SLTC and others that ended in NAR’s denial by the Board of Adjustment in 2024.

The wheels of justice sometimes turn slowly, but justice has prevailed.

𝐀𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐋𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐋𝐓𝐂!

10/23/2025

𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐍𝐄𝐖𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐆𝐄 𝐎𝐅 𝐀 𝐆𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐓 𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐔𝐋𝐓 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐒𝐋𝐓𝐂 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐅𝐑𝐄𝐄 𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐄𝐂𝐇 𝐈𝐍 𝐋𝐄𝐁𝐀𝐍𝐎𝐍 𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐍𝐒𝐇𝐈𝐏!

10/15/2025

𝐀𝐏𝐏𝐄𝐋𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐓 𝐓𝐎𝐒𝐒𝐄𝐒 𝐍𝐀𝐑’𝐒 𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐏𝐏 𝐒𝐔𝐈𝐓 𝐀𝐏𝐏𝐄𝐀𝐋-
𝐀 𝐓𝐎𝐓𝐀𝐋 𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐘 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐒𝐋𝐓𝐂 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐈𝐑𝐒𝐓 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐃𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓!

Today a three-judge panel of the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, issued a unanimous, 27-page decision rejecting an appeal by the NAR Group, Inc. (“NAR”) from a lower court’s previous dismissal of NAR’s SLAPP lawsuit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) against Save Lebanon Township Coalition (“SLTC”) and its three trustees, personally. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐍𝐀𝐑’𝐬 𝐭𝐰𝐨-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐒𝐋𝐓𝐂 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐍𝐀𝐑’𝐬 𝐳𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐋𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩.

As explained by the court, the First Amendment right of citizens to petition their government generally immunizes their petitioning activities from civil liability. The court wrote, “residents dissatisfied with a zoning board’s actions have the absolute right…to participate in hearings, oppose zoning applications affecting their property, and file an appeal to the courts.” This is exactly what SLTC, and its individual trustees, did in this case.

Many supporters of SLTC were understandably alarmed when they learned of NAR’s SLAPP lawsuit being filed against SLTC and its trustees, personally, in September 2023. That lawsuit required the trustees to hire personal attorneys at their own expense, to deal with the stress of NAR’s claims for money damages, to pay more legal fees for NAR’s appeal after NAR’s case was dismissed, and to endure NAR’s ongoing efforts to damage their personal reputations in the community. Some supporters of SLTC feared coming to meetings or speaking out in public lest they, too, might be sued.

Hopefully, with this court decision comes not only total vindication of SLTC and its trustees, but also a renewed willingness by everyone in the community to stand up and speak their minds, even against a well-financed out-of-town developer bent on intimidation.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐠𝐮𝐲𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐧, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐭.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐒𝐋𝐓𝐂!

09/29/2025

𝐑𝐄𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐑: 𝐋𝐄𝐁𝐀𝐍𝐎𝐍 𝐓𝐎𝐖𝐍𝐒𝐇𝐈𝐏 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐈𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐄 𝐌𝐄𝐄𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆
𝟕:𝟎𝟎 𝐏.𝐌. 𝐖𝐄𝐃𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐃𝐀𝐘, 𝐎𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐁𝐄𝐑 𝟏𝐬𝐭 𝐀𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐂𝐈𝐏𝐀𝐋 𝐁𝐔𝐈𝐋𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆

The only meeting of the Lebanon Township Committee in October will take place at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 1, 2025, at the Municipal Building. Due to ongoing maintenance of the Township’s website, the agenda for the meeting is not available on the website. However, it is posted on the Township’s page, here: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61558919936307

This will be a good meeting to attend. It will include a 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐉𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞, who while off duty recently rescued a woman from drowning in the Delaware River, at great risk to himself. Recognition well deserved!

As always, the meeting will include 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: one at the beginning of the meeting, limited to agenda items only (check the agenda to see what might come up); and a second opportunity at the very end, for comment on any topic. No doubt some interesting comments will be made.

𝐋𝐞𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝!

Lebanon Township is located in the northern part of Hunterdon County, New Jersey. Historically an agricultural community, the township has grown in recent years while still maintaining its rural character and charm.

09/05/2025

𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐓𝐇𝐎𝐒𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐀𝐋 𝐅𝐄𝐄𝐒…

At last Wednesday night’s meeting of the Lebanon Township Committee, 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐍𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐚𝐫 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩, 𝐈𝐧𝐜. (“𝐍𝐀𝐑”).

Interestingly, NAR’s owner, Nitin Manglani (“Manglani”), who doesn’t live in the Township and rarely comes to meetings, was also in attendance. Manglani was undoubtedly pleased to hear two residents questioning the Committee’s decision to incur the legal expenses necessary to resist NAR’s ongoing demands.

For those who only recently started coming to Township meetings and may be unaware of the facts, let’s set the record straight.

1. NAR only exists because in August 2019 the Township’s former mayor and former attorneys took it upon themselves to meet privately with Manglani and give NAR a letter that NAR falsely claims as “zoning approval.” 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐍𝐀𝐑 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐍𝐀𝐑 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞. The letter was completely unauthorized. It was provided to NAR without any input from the Township Committee (the “Committee”), the Planning Board (the “PB”), the Board of Adjustment (the “BOA”), and the residents of the Township. The former mayor and former Township attorneys responsible for providing this letter to NAR are no longer around.

2. NAR attempted to follow up on the ill-conceived 2019 “approval letter” by applying to the Planning Board in July 2022 for site plan approval of its industrial ma*****na production and processing facility in the abandoned aerosol factory at 62 Anthony Road (the “Property”). NAR’s application was based on the false assumption that its proposed factory building would be a “farm” as defined in the Township’s zoning ordinance. Upon objection by a Township resident, the Planning Board correctly directed NAR to the Board of Adjustment for an interpretation of the term “farm” as applied to NAR’s proposed facility. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐍𝐀𝐑 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩.

3. Rather than make an application to the BOA for an interpretation, which NAR feared they would lose, NAR hired an expensive, high powered law firm to sue the PB and the Committee. 𝐔𝐩 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐨 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐬.

4. Save Lebanon Township Coalition (“SLTC”) was then formed by Township residents and opposed NAR’s application, for two reasons: (1) to restore the integrity of the zoning process in the Township; and (2) to assure an interpretation of the term “farm” that recognizes and preserves the rural character of the Township. 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐍𝐀𝐑’𝐬 𝐨𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐋𝐓𝐂 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐍𝐀𝐑.

5. 𝐒𝐋𝐓𝐂, 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐥, 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐍𝐀𝐑’𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭, and obtained a ruling from the court that required NAR to go to the BOA for an interpretation, just as the PB had previously decided. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩’𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥.

6. While NAR’s lawsuit against the PB and the Committee was pending, NAR filed two other lawsuits, using two more law firms (a total of four different law firms since 2022). The first was a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) filed against SLTC and its trustees, personally. 𝐒𝐋𝐓𝐂 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭. The second was a suit by NAR against the Committee for enforcing the Township’s ordinance requiring site plan approval, which halted NAR’s contrived “h**p” production facility at the Property, virtually identical to its proposed ma*****na facility. 𝐎𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐍𝐀𝐑 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞’𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧.

7. In July 2023, NAR finally applied to the BOA for an interpretation of the term “farm,” or in the alternative, for a zoning variance. The BOA hearing on this application took place on 16 evenings over six months at Voorhees High School. SLTC opposed NAR’s application using its own legal counsel and expert planning witness. On May 8, 2024, the BOA issued a resolution denying NAR’s interpretation and request for a variance. 𝐀𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐍𝐀𝐑 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐎𝐀’𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐥, 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐫, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠. Unhappy with the BOA’s decision, NAR then sued the BOA and added the BOA to its original lawsuit against the PB and the Committee.

8. The portion of NAR’s lawsuit that has not been dismissed involves the BOA’s interpretation of the term “farm” and the decision not to grant NAR a use variance. That decision is now before the court for review in the form of a “trial” on the basis of the record made before the BOA. On June 6, 2025, NAR’s lawyers filed a trial brief of 149 pages along with an appendix of 1,784 pages and another 2,710 pages of hearing transcripts. In response, on August 26, 2025, counsel for the BOA filed a trial brief of 199 pages and an appendix of 163 pages. On August 27, 2025, counsel for SLTC filed a separate trial brief of 62 pages. Counsel for NAR will now file a reply brief due in early October. The court will then set a date for oral argument and thereafter issue a decision. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐱 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐍𝐀𝐑’𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐬. 𝐒𝐋𝐓𝐂’𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨 𝐛𝐨𝐧𝐨 (𝐧𝐨 𝐟𝐞𝐞) 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬.

9. There is almost always a significant lag time between the occurrence of a mistake that leads to legal exposure and the need to pay legal fees resulting from the mistake. That is the case with the NAR lawsuit, where a letter that never should have been written in August 2019 is costing the Township legal fees incurred in the summer of 2025. 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐀𝐑 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞’𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟗 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬.

10. When the Township is sued by a well-financed, out of town developer like NAR, the choice is simple: give them what they want or be prepared to pay lawyers to resist a legal assault. In this case, SLTC carried the load for the Township most of the way, but ultimately the Township must defend its own zoning ordinance. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲, 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐚 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐍𝐀𝐑 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐍𝐀𝐑’𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟐.

If anyone thinks the Committee should surrender because NAR's locked and guarded industrial facility really is a “farm,” they are entitled to their opinion, which is shared by the owners of NAR. Anyone holding that opinion may also believe, as NAR’s owners do, that the Committee should ignore the Township’s two ordinances that expressly prohibit all ma*****na businesses in all zoning districts. 𝐋𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐫𝐞𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐨.

08/04/2025

𝐋𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐧 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫
𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐋𝐨𝐭 – 𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧!

The agenda for the Lebanon Township Planning Board meeting tomorrow night (Tuesday, August 5th) includes a public hearing on the application of Wayne Ingram to develop a building lot on Heather Hill Road, a private lane in the Township. 𝐈𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐭 𝟖 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐇𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐑𝐨𝐚𝐝, 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐩, 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝟓𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐨.

Previously, Ingram applied to the Board of Adjustment (“BOA”) for approvals to build on the lot, including variances, but the BOA identified a Planning Board Resolution from 1977 that required Ingram’s lot to be merged into an adjacent lot, on which a house has since been built. Because that Resolution had not been satisfied, the BOA instructed Ingram to apply to the Planning Board for relief from the 1977 Resolution requirement that the lots be merged.

𝐈𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟕𝟕 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟑 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧. 𝐇𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩. That lawsuit took a twist when it was discovered that the audio recording of the Planning Board meeting at which the Planning Board decided against Ingram had been lost or corrupted. As a result, the court ordered the Planning Board to “reconstruct the record” of its 2023 decision against Ingram. That is what’s on the agenda for tomorrow night. If the Board cannot “reconstruct the record” it may again take testimony from Ingram and objectors to the development.

Neighbors on Heather Hill Road and on Lilac Lane, which lies behind and downhill from Ingram’s lot, have expressed opposition to Ingram’s request to develop the lot. They are expected to attend and voice their opposition at the Planning Board tomorrow night. There are other peculiar facts in the history of this property that make this application complicated and challenging for the Board.

𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝 – 𝟕:𝟎𝟎 𝐩.𝐦. 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐥 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠.

𝐋𝐞𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝!