BERKELEY – Neighbors of a planned development of 17 townhouses near the border of Ocean Gate are hoping the court will hear their voices in fighting this construction project.
The property is described as 2.3 acres fronting on Ocean Gate Turnpike, though it is commonly referred to as the Louis Avenue development. There will be two, three-story townhouse buildings – one with 11 units, the other with six.
The developer will build an 1,800 square foot recreation area. There are 30 parking spaces, including two accessible spaces for those with disabilities. There is language about curbing and sidewalks up and until the “wetlands buffer line” where the development ends. Two infiltration basins will assist stormwater management. A gravel emergency access route will come from Ocean Gate Turnpike.
A group of residents spoke out at the most recent Planning Board meeting against this development.
Patrick Varga, the Planning Board’s attorney, asked the board not to respond to questions from the public during this time.
Joanne Hannemann, who lives on Ocean Gate Drive, said “I’ve been trying to get on the record for two and a half years.” Every time she wanted to speak to the Planning Board about the project, she was told it wasn’t the right time because of land use board rules.
She said the property had been protected from development for environmental reasons. Over the years, this has changed, so that it is now open to multi-family housing.
The wooded area has deer paths, and is full of the sound of birds, she shared.
She said she has photos showing the area floods, which will be made worse when the construction takes place.
“There’s lots of water flooding issues,” said Carolyn Severino, who has lived in Ocean Gate since 1961. “The water table is rising. That little piece of wetlands keeps Ocean Gate from getting completely flooded.”
Carol Lambusta of Ocean Gate described fighting mold and running two sump pumps because of flooding in her home.
Bayville resident Kathy Gruczynski said 17 units sets a precedent for building in wetlands.
Recent History
A plan for two, three-story buildings of 17 homes was reported in The Berkeley Times in 2021.
In 2023, when Hannemann complained to the governing body about the proposed condos on the parcel of land, then-Mayor Carmen Amato told her “we tried to buy it,” and preserve it as open space. However, the property owner had a contract with local developer Dream Homes already.
A December 26, 2024 letter from Salvatore Alfieri, the attorney representing the developer, to the Berkeley Planning Board said “my client does not intend to proceed at this time and therefore, I respectfully request that my client’s application be withdrawn without prejudice.”
In a February 1, 2025 article by this publication noted how the application was pulled but that it could still be developed in the future.
Notice And Meetings
When a developer has plans for property, they are required to issue notices to neighbors. Opponents of the development said that was done the first time, but not the second.
Varga said that the developer pulled the application months ago, then reapplied. They never had to issue new notices to neighbors because the new plan was the same as the old one.
Hearings on this development were in April, May, and June of this year. However, the neighbors said that because they never received any notice, they had no idea that these meetings were taking place. Therefore, they never had an opportunity to speak or to bring in environmental experts to give testimony.
The most recent Planning Board meeting is when residents came out to speak against the development, but the only action that was taken on this topic was the passing of a resolution that put into writing all that had already been decided. The residents could only speak during the public portion when the floor is open to any topic.
The development has already been presided over by the Planning Board, Varga said. There is a 45-day window for residents to file an appeal. Their next place to hear this concern is to take it to court.
The residents said they would take the issue to court.
