TOMS RIVER – Following a contentious series of meetings marked by legal challenges and strong community input, the Toms River Zoning Board voted 5-2 to reject a proposal by Christ Episcopal Church to have a 17-bed homeless shelter on its property in an R-150 residential zone.
The denial followed eight months of hearings in which supporters cited the project’s alignment with both legal precedent and moral imperative – and opponents raised concerns about property values, public safety, and the proximity of the site to homes and school bus stops.
Resident Paul Ryan delivered a pro se closing argument pointing to a mismatch between the proposed use and the character of the neighborhood. He claimed that since the church has been used as an outreach center, there has been an increase in loitering and safety concerns.
Misinformation Cited
Two board members who voted against the shelter cited what they claimed was at least a $12 million cost to develop the site, a figure not supported by any documents in evidence.
Ocean County awarded the Ending Homelessness Group a much smaller competitive grant of $983,000 through American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. These funds are separate from the $12.5 million allocated to other nonprofits for programs such as the Young Adult Bridge Housing initiative and the Acquisition for Innovations to Address Homelessness.
“Specifically, $983,000 was proposed and budgeted by the vendor to create a small, licensed emergency shelter site,” explained former County Public Information Director Donna Flynn. “While Ending Homelessness Group is the lead agency on the contract with the county, Affordable Housing Alliance is listed as a collaborating entity, which was encouraged as part of the solicitation.”
Despite no testimony submitted about the shelter’s actual budget, board member Dana Tormollan cited the inflated cost in her remarks before voting no.
“$15 million, $13 million – it’s a lot of money,” said Tormollan. “I feel there’s a better solution.”
Board member Anthony Fontana expressed similar frustration. “Ocean County has to do better,” he said. “For $12 million dollars – or whatever the grant money is, for that kind of money, the homeless people of this county deserve more than 17 beds.”
A Clash Between Head And Heart
While Tormollan said she empathized with the need to address homelessness, she ultimately questioned the staffing plan and security setup. She said that two untrained overnight staffers would supervise shelter guests, with men and women separated only by a curtain.
Tormollan also likened the shelter to a Code Blue warming center as those accepted into the facility would only be permitted to enter during specified hours.
“This has been a fight between my head and my heart,” she said. “These people need a permanent shelter to go to, whether it be daytime in 90 degrees or nighttime in 25 degrees. They deserve someplace to go, but this is not the right spot.”
The dissenting board members did not specifically deny or acknowledge the inherently beneficial use of a homeless shelter – one of the necessary factors in making a determination. However, they did comment on the negative implications.
“Applications like this have major implications, not only to residents in the immediate area, but to the residents townwide,” Zoning Board Chairman Jason Crispin said. “And for future applications like this to come, I’m going to stop short tonight of calling this spot zoning, the ruling on this application could potentially be affecting other residential zones.”
Attorney Harvey York, who appeared on behalf of the applicant admitted that he lives near the site. He implored board members to show “courage, compassion, and mercy.”
York cited case law affirming the right of churches to operate shelters as expressions of faith, including the landmark St. John’s case in which the court affirmed that providing sanctuary to the homeless is a fundamental religious tradition. As he multiplied 17 beds times 365 days, York submitted the importance of approving the shelter.
“That’s 6,205 times homeless people will have shelter,” said York. “If that’s not inherently beneficial use, tell me what is.”
Under New Jersey land use law, an “inherently beneficial use” is defined as one that serves the public good and promotes general welfare – including hospitals, schools, and group homes. York and expert witnesses contended that the shelter met that standard.
Stuart Wiser, the Board of Adjustment’s professional planner explained that inherently beneficial uses presumptively meet the positive criteria for a use variance. He added it was then up to board to apply a legal test – called the Sica balancing test – to weigh public interest versus public detriment.
Board member Nels Luthman, who voted in favor of the shelter, said he believed the criteria had been met. He pointed out that Toms River is the eighth largest town in the state and has 463 homeless people.
“The shelter’s not going to help all of those people,” acknowledged Luthman. “But at least it’s a step in the right direction. There are no shelters in Ocean County. It’s a place for people to get back on their feet.”
Luthman spoke about helping the needy as part of every religion and suggested that instead of the unhoused sleeping in parking garages and woods, the unhoused would have a safe place to go.
What’s Next?
York has already signaled plans to appeal the decision. Meanwhile, another twist could further complicate the situation. The Toms River Township Council is set to consider an ordinance to seize the church property through eminent domain – for recreational purposes.
What happens next is uncertain. But as the debate over the shelter continues, the broader issue remains unresolved: How – and where – will Ocean County provide shelter to its most vulnerable residents?
For now, at least, the answer won’t be on the property owned by Christ Church of Toms River on Washington Street.
