BERKELEY – A group of 24 age-restricted apartments were approved by the Zoning Board on Route 9, but neighbors are concerned about contamination and flooding.
The parcel of land is on the southbound side, just south of the abandoned gas station and the post office.
The dwellings will be limited to 48 and older, with no one younger than 19.
There will be 24 total units. The six, one-bedroom units will be 734 square feet where 950 is required. The 18, two-bedroom units will be 1,032 square feet where 1,100 is required.
Given how small the units are, Zoning Board members suggested a deal that could be worked out with the storage facility across the street. If not, some other kind of building for storage might have to be built so that people’s belongings don’t litter the area.
Testimony for the developer was given by Attorney Greg Hock and Matthew Wilder, director of engineering services for Morgan Engineering.
At the time it was researched, there were 132 properties for rent in town, and only two were one-bedroom. Most of the rentals were two-bedroom and most were in the senior communities, Hock said. This shows there’s a need in the area for these apartments.
The developer will also be paying into Berkeley’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. This is an account that the town can use to rehabilitate or otherwise extend the number of affordable housing in town. While every town is required to provide a certain number of affordable homes in town, Berkeley is currently caught up.
Zoning Board Engineer Ernie Peters asked them that if it ever changes from rent to sale, there would be a homeowners association to take care of maintenance.
Board member Ray Sager wanted to see a minimum of one year leases, to prevent any transient housing.
Various parts of the project were discussed, such as lighting and the time for garbage pick-up. There was discussion of where the mechanicals like air conditioning would be. Wilder said not on the roof but on the ground near an active recreation area.
Later, Zoning Board member Trent Stone raised concern that they would be loud for the residents.
Tallwood Way is a private road, but half of it is within the property to be developed. They had to iron out who would be responsible for sidewalks and maintenance.
Often, developers are required to put in sidewalks. But that requirement is sometimes waived if there are no sidewalks on neighboring properties – because there’s no point in putting sidewalks to nowhere.
When the developer pointed out there’s no sidewalks in the area, Zoning Board member Bill McGrath said that’s because there’s nothing there now. He wanted a sidewalk so tenants could walk to the nearby Quickchek.
The developer proposed the height of the building to be 37 feet. They were asking for a variance, because this height is not allowed.
Board members didn’t like the height.
“It’s going to look like a monstrosity,” McGrath said.
Board member Ed Gudaitis agreed. The total building height includes 9-foot ceilings on each of the three floors. He argued that 8-foot ceilings are just as good. A 9-foot ceiling isn’t going to be what brings in renters. Each floor could have 8-foot ceilings, which would drop the total height by three feet.
Sager noted that if they approved the height, then it sets a precedent for future developments.
Board members were also concerned about how to get a fire truck onto the property. It’s a tight fit, and the truck would have to drive onto the turf between the building and a line of greenery made for privacy between this property and neighbors.
Board member Ralph Ferrara noted how narrow the stairway was if a pair of EMTs needed to carry someone out in a stretcher.
Board member James Sullivan said that with only 43 parking spaces for 24 apartments, people are going to park on Tallwood Way.
Wilder agreed to bring the height down a few feet and build sidewalks.
Board member Gerry Morey said that there are a lot of kids in the area. Once they find out there’s a recreation spot on the property, they will be going there even if it’s supposed to be for seniors.
Stormwater will be collected under the parking lot, where it will then filter into the soil, a relatively new approach that officials said should help contain all the rainwater on site.
Board President Richard Elliott said that the area already has a flooding problem. He liked the underground water filtration system, though, and thinks it will help. He’d like to see it bigger.
“This is needed,” he said of low rent apartments. “There’s a waiting list. People are looking for housing.”
An environmental engineer by trade, McGrath asked if there had been soil borings done to test for pollution.
There’s an abandoned gas station nearby, and plumes of contamination are believed to go through this property.
Wilder said they will do soil borings. He noted that the building will be on township water, not wells.
Residents Concerned
Resident Mike Baldi spoke out against the development. He said the toxic waste could be spreading more, and they won’t know until tests are completed.
Baldi said he wanted to know why this was voted down once and then back on the agenda.
It was explained that the first time it was voted upon, in April of 2024, the board voted it down, but one of the “no” votes was an alternate member who was not supposed to be voting.
Another resident, Laura Lutton, said that the apartments shouldn’t be heard in an area zoned for single-family housing.
“It sends the message that zoning rules can be disregarded for development,” she said.
Another resident, Helen Fitzherbert, warned that this development will allow 200-250 trips by vehicles down a road where kids are playing.
Another resident, Paul Davis, said his basement floods constantly. A large building like this will cause more flooding.
Professionals testified that the filtration system will keep all water on the site. Elliott, the board president, said that the stringent demands they put on developers will keep the project from impacting neighbors.
Britta Forsberg, executive director of Save Barnegat Bay, was about to speak. There’s a rule that only people who live within 200 feet of the property could comment but that was waived.
She talked about the contamination on the property and asked if people moving in have to be notified of contamination. It was explained to her that rental tenants don’t have to be notified.
She noted that the State Department of Environmental Protection makes recommendations based on healthy people, not seniors who might have health ailments. They would be more impacted.
Peters made sure they will have a Phase I Environmental Assessment of the property as a condition of approval, which made members of the public cheer.
The majority of the board voted for it, although some noted they had to approve it “reluctantly.”
Elliott told the public “Every board member goes to the site. We’re not just sitting here and taking their word for it.”
