- Today
- Holidays
- Birthdays
- Reminders
- Cities
- Atlanta
- Austin
- Baltimore
- Berwyn
- Beverly Hills
- Birmingham
- Boston
- Brooklyn
- Buffalo
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Cincinnati
- Cleveland
- Columbus
- Dallas
- Denver
- Detroit
- Fort Worth
- Houston
- Indianapolis
- Knoxville
- Las Vegas
- Los Angeles
- Louisville
- Madison
- Memphis
- Miami
- Milwaukee
- Minneapolis
- Nashville
- New Orleans
- New York
- Omaha
- Orlando
- Philadelphia
- Phoenix
- Pittsburgh
- Portland
- Raleigh
- Richmond
- Rutherford
- Sacramento
- Salt Lake City
- San Antonio
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- San Jose
- Seattle
- Tampa
- Tucson
- Washington
Newton Today
By the People, for the People
Frankford Residents Prevail in Court to Rebuild Septic System
After a four-year legal battle and $350,000 in costs, a New Jersey judge ruled in favor of the Seibert family in their dispute with a neighbor over a septic system construction permit.
Published on Feb. 21, 2026
Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›
In a dispute over a septic system construction permit in Frankford, New Jersey, the Seibert family prevailed in court after a four-year legal battle that cost them $350,000. The Seiberts were represented by Anand Dash, while their neighbor Thomas Hanemann, who objected to the septic system, was represented by Glenn Kienz. The judge, Stuart Minkowitz, ruled that the Frankford land use board acted "erroneous as a matter of law, null and void, invalid, illegal, and ultra vires" when it revoked the Seiberts' construction permits on the advice of the board's attorney, Thomas Collins.
Why it matters
This case highlights the challenges that homeowners can face when trying to make improvements to their property, even when they have the necessary permits and approvals. The lengthy legal battle and high costs underscore the importance of clear and consistent zoning and land use regulations, as well as the need for local governments to respect the decisions of their own experts and professionals.
The details
The Seiberts had obtained the required septic permit from the county health department and had begun construction after receiving approval from the township's zoning officer. However, their neighbor, Thomas Hanemann, filed an appeal of the zoning officer's decision approximately 75 days after the permits were issued. The Frankford land use board, on the advice of their attorney Thomas Collins, then voted to rescind the Seiberts' approval. The Seiberts filed a complaint with the Sussex County Superior Court, and the judge ruled in their favor, stating that the board "lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the Hanemann defendants" and that their decision was "erroneous as a matter of law, null and void, invalid, illegal, and ultra vires".
- In the summer of 2022, the Seiberts obtained the required septic permit from the county health department.
- In the fall of 2022, the Seiberts began construction on their septic system after receiving approval from the township's zoning officer.
- Approximately 75 days after the construction permits were issued, the Hanemann defendants filed an appeal of the zoning officer's decision.
- Eight to 10 months later, the Hanemann's appeal was heard at the Frankford land use board.
- In early 2026, Judge Stuart Minkowitz issued his ruling in favor of the Seiberts.
The players
Jerry and Jennifer Seibert
Frankford residents who were seeking to install a septic system on their property.
Anand Dash
The attorney representing the Seiberts.
Thomas and Kim Hanemann
Neighbors of the Seiberts who objected to the septic system construction.
Glenn Kienz
The attorney representing the Hanemann defendants.
Thomas Collins
The attorney advising the Frankford land use board.
What they’re saying
“The actions of the Board concerning the Appeal Application and the Interpretation Application, and the Board's determination of same as memorialized in the Resolution, were erroneous as a matter of law, null and void, invalid, illegal, and ultra vires.”
— Judge Stuart Minkowitz (Court opinion)
What’s next
The two remaining claims related to the flow of water between the Seibert and Hanemann properties can proceed to be adjudicated in superior court.
The takeaway
This case highlights the importance of clear and consistent zoning and land use regulations, as well as the need for local governments to respect the decisions of their own experts and professionals. The lengthy legal battle and high costs underscore the challenges homeowners can face when trying to make improvements to their property, even when they have the necessary permits and approvals.

