July 10, 2019 Middletown Planning Board Meeting - Village 35

I know I'm a little late to the party on this one, but it's still important to post.

At the July 10th meeting of the Middletown Planning Board, the Board unanimously approved the Village 35 project despite the concerns of many residents that were in attendance that evening. You can read what the Asbury Park Press had to say about ... HERE

Needless to say, other than the developer, there aren't many people happy about this decision. As designed, the Village 35 center is going to be a monstrosity and eyesore for anyone living or traveling in the vicinity of highway 35 between Tindall Road and Kanes Lane and beyond.

Many of those objecting to the size and scope of this project would like to see it downsized and some kind of passive recreation included. 

There has been a long history of law suits surrounding this development and i wouldn't be too surprised if that history is extended by a couple more. 

June 5, 2019 Middletown township Planning Board Meeting - Village 35 Traffic Study

If you are interested in the Village 35 project and was curious about what was going on, here is the video from Thursday night's meeting of the Middletown Planning Board:

"The Applicant is requesting preliminary and final major subdivision and major site plan in accordance with the Circus Liquors Redevelopment Plan. The applicant is seeking site plan approval to construct seven (7) buildings totaling 342,000 square feet of commercial development.

 The Traffic Engineer for the developer presented the DOT approved plan for the access roads surrounding the commercial development of Village 35."

February 19, 2019 Middletown Township Committee Meeting

In observance of President's Day, this weeks meeting of the Middletown Township Committee meeting was moved from Monday night, to the following night, Tuesday February 19th 2019. It was a relatively short meeting (I didn't attend, I watched the video) which lasted just under an hour.

Here are the highlights from the meeting as posted by Don Watson on the Patch:

- Fire Chief Fred Gorsegner was recognized for his 50 years of service with the MTFD.
- Ordinances were adopted that would re-appropriate borrowed funds to purchase radar units for the police, another for sidewalk improvements and amend summer recreation camps and gymnasium rentals.
- Ordinances were introduced to establish a refund policy for recreation fees and another to amend recreation preschool program fees.
- Some of the resolutions adopted include a change order for Thompson Ave, appoint a municipal prosecutor and ratify an agreement with the Superior Officers Association.
- A group of concerned residents came to express their concerns regarding a proposed crematory being constructed at Fairview Cemetery. Residents spoke about the potential effects of the exhaust that is produced when human bodies are cremated. The Township Committee informed the residents to bring their concerns to the Planning Board, for they could not comment on an application in front of the Planning Board.



As always you can download a copy of the Meeting Agenda that contains the discussion items and the proposed resolutions and ordinances that were voted on or presented during the meeting. A box around an item is a link, bringing you further into the document to that resolution or ordinance. At the end of the resolution there will be a link bringing you back to the agenda. Attached to this agenda is also the monthly bill list, so that everyone can see how the Township is spending our tax dollars.

August 20, 2018 Middletown Township Committee Meeting

Last Monday night's marathon meeting of the Middletown Township Committee lasted until the wee hours of the morning. There was an overflow crowd that spilled out into the lobby and the Township Fire Marshall was there to ensure that the Court Room did not exceed the maximum number of people.

The reason for circus like atmosphere was the public hearing regarding ordinance to determine if the redevelopment plan proposed for the Village 35 property was consistent with the Township Master Plan. This was the first time that many residents were allowed to speak on the matter and many attended this meeting to voice their concerns regarding the Plan. At the end of the night, the Township Committee accepted the recommendation of the Planning Board and voted to approve this ordinance.



As always you can download a copy of the Meeting Agenda that contains the discussion items and the proposed resolutions and ordinances that were voted on or presented during the meeting. A box around an item is a link, bringing you further into the document to that resolution or ordinance. At the end of the resolution there will be a link bringing you back to the agenda. Attached to this agenda is also the monthly bill list, so that everyone can see how the Township is spending our tax dollars.

9-13-17 Planning Board Meeting

A meeting of the Middletown Planning Board was held this past Wednesday night. It was of note due to the 2 items of business that were heard, The Village 35 and the Steak & Ale properties.

The Village 35 project was back on the agenda, but the Board and the developer could not agree on the direction that testimony would go. The Board finally voted not proceed with the direction the developer wanted to go. A decision as to when the hearing would continue took another long period of time, after hearing the lamentations of the Board members about having to be subjected to the amount of testimony that would be in front of them. The hearing ended around 1:18:00 minutes into the video.

The remaining portion of the video had the developer of the former Steak & Ale property finish up their testimony for the project to construct a day care, a Dunkin' Donuts drive-thru, a Mavis tire center and other retail space that they received approval for. This hearing began at 1:33:00 of the video, which was after a 15 minute break between each hearing.

h/t MiddletownOG

July 12, 2017 Middletown Planning Board Meeting - Villlage 35

There was a Planning Board meeting Wednesday night and for those following the Village 35 application, the video below contains proceedings from that hearing. If you need the short version of what happened that night Russ Zimmer from the Asbury Park Press reported that "Wegmans survives Middletown planning board meeting", for now.

The Planning Board meeting was exceptionally long and was broken down into two videos. If you'd like to know what his happening at the old Steak & Ale site that has been sitting vacant for 10+ years, that was answered in the second video that can be watched ......  HERE

December 7, 2016 Middletown NJ Planning Board Meeting - Village 35

The December 7th meeting of the Middletown Planning Board ended without testimony on the Village 35 development. The attorneys for the two Village 35 developers discussed reasons for asking for a rescheduled meeting. Testimony guidelines were also discussed with the Planning Board. Members of the Planning Board expressed the opinion that the developers are trying to delay the development of the projects they have been looking to get approval to construct.

The Asbury Park Press has further details about the meeting.

Plans For Town Center Present At March 4th Planning Board

On March 4th, the Town Center took the stage in front of Middletown Planning Board. The initial presentation of Town Center plans presented to the Planning Board took nearly 4 hours.

The plan for Town Center has been reduced dramatically from when it was first presented over a decade ago and are now below the requirements that were agreed upon as part of a settlement of a the lawsuit brought against the township by the developers.

The plan includes 350 residential units, 70 of which will be affordable, 400,000 sq. ft. of retail space and about 20 acres set aside for farmland.

Letter: Trinity Hall and the Township of Middletown

Dear Editor:

I have one simple question. What is the Township of Middletown's position on the proposed Trinity Hall development in Chapel Hill? When questioned on the issue in the past, the Township Committee told residents that the approval or denial of the proposed development’s application is solely the Township Planning Board’s decision.

On June 11, 2014, the Township Planning Board voted 6-3 to deny Trinity Hall's application. Shortly after the application was denied, Trinity Hall filed a law suit against Middletown Township seeking relief of the Planning Board’s decision. One would think that based on the previous statements made by the Township Committee, Middletown and the Township Attorney would vehemently defend the Township Planning Board’s decision. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. This past Friday upon the Superior Court of New Jersey’s ruling on Trinity Hall’s lawsuit, a letter that Middletown Township Attorney, Brian Nelson, wrote to the presiding judge was made public. Based on this letter it appears Mr. Nelson contradicts the position of the Township Planning Board’s decision to deny the Trinity Hall application and it appears that he and the Township Committee side with Trinity Hall by recommending that the Court grant the school’s request to reverse the Planning Board’s decision and approve the application without remand to the Planning Board.

Is it not the responsibility of the township’s governing body to protect the interests of its residents above all else? After reading Mr. Nelson’s letter, all Middletown residents should be asking themselves who is our Township Attorney really working for and what is the Township Committee’s position on the proposed Trinity Hall development in Chapel Hill?

Sincerely,

Jeffrey P. Yachmetz
Concerned Resident of Middletown

And So It Begins: Trinity Hall lawsuit seeks immediate action

Yesterday's article in the Asbury Park Press concerning a lawsuit filed by the all girls school Trinity Hall, against the Middletown Township Planning Board's June 11th decision to deny Trinity Hall's application to build a school over on Chapel Hill came as no surprise. It was expected by everyone.

Now however, it isn't just the local residents known as the Chapel Hill Neighboorhood Group, that have to foot the bill for rightfully  fighting Trinity Hall's application, it's all the taxpayer of Middletown.

Here is a snippet of what the APP has reported:

MIDDLETOWN – A lawsuit has been filed against the township Planning Board after it denied an application to build a campus on Chapel Hills Road.

Officials of Trinity Hall girls high school asked a judge for a prompt review of the suit because the lease on the school's current building expires in August 2015.

The suit asks a judge to overturn the board's decision and approve the plans for a multi-building campus, which the planning board rejected after a six-hour hearing on June 11.

A lease extension also would require approval from state Green Acres officials because the building is located in a park, said Township Administrator Anthony Mercantante, who added there is an option to renew the lease on the township-owned Croydon Hall school building for six additional months.

Board rejects school's proposal

Trinity Hall proposed a campus to ultimately house 500 girls and 60 staff on 37 acres on Chapel Hill Road, which previously was approved for 19 homes. It is the only all-girls high school in Monmouth and Ocean counties and is conducting classes in a rented school building in the Leonardo section of the township.

School officials didn't wait for the board's August vote to finalize the June 11 decision to reject the plans, announcing their intent to sue five days after the planning board meeting and vote.

The school filed the lawsuit in Monmouth County Superior Court on July 3....

Continue reading

Planning Board Votes 6-3 To Turn Down Trinity Hall Application

I spent several long hours last night at the Middletown Planning Board meeting listen to public comments made by both Trinity Hall supporters and residents from the Chapel Hill area who opposed the construction of the all-girls high school in their neighborhood off of Chapel Hill Rd. and Kings Highway East.

I didn't get home until nearly 1:30 am and was too tired to write anything about it until now. Seeing how both the Middletown Patch and The Asbury Park Press reporters were both in attendance I won't get into a lot of details, you can read about the proceedings in greater detail from them.

At times, those that commented were passionate in their opposition or support of the proposal but in the end the Middletown Planning Board turned down Trinity Hall's application by a vote of 6-3 in favor of the residents concerns over safety and traffic issues. Needless to say, members of the Chapel Hill Neighborhood Group, many of which were in attendance and spoke during the public comments before the Planning Board voted, were ecstatic over the outcome. Trinity Hall supporters... not so much.

As a matter of fact, after the proceedings, a rather heated argument erupted outside the court room, in the lobby of Town Hall were the meeting took place. It was broken up quickly however before anything serious happened between the two parties.

As I said, I would recap further but after 7 hours of testimony the Middletown-Patch and reporter Christina Johnson has a good summary of the nights proceedings. Also the Asbury Park Press's reporter Larry Higgs was there for the whole 7 hour proceeding and I'm sure that he will have a much more to say about meeting in his article. I'm interested in hearing what the people he interviewed afterwards had to say about the evening.

The past 6 months have been a long and grueling process on both the residents of Chapel Hill and the proponents of Trinity Hall school but it showed what can happen when residents ban together and speak with one, united voice against well funded special interests. David can overcome Goliath.    

This past 6 months also shows you how not to present your case in front of the Planning Board. Trinity Hall did a terrible job justifying the need for the school to be located in Middletown and presented flawed site drawings and relied on various reports that were several years old and turned  not to reflect the current conditions of the proposed site today.

Trinity Hall was lazy and evidently felt that this application was a slam dunk. They didn't do the proper homework needed to ensure that their proposal would succeed. They wasted a lot of time, money and effort and if that is the way that they would run their school, I think it's best that their application was turned down. They can go build their school elsewhere.

American Properties Sues Middletown To Overturn Taylor Lane Denial

Interesting article in this week's Independent concerning the proposed Taylor Lane housing development that was turned down by the Middletown Planning Boarda few months ago.  The developer American Properties, is suing Middletown in Superior Court to overturn the ruling by the Planning Board.

After reading the article, a portion of which is printed below, I don't see how legally, Middletown has much of a leg to stand on and will surely lose in court.  Middletown's zoning process seems to be hap-hazard at times without a lot of thought placed into it.  The deficiency in the process then leads to court cases like this one which Middletown has a history of losing.

MIDDLETOWN — Iselin-based developer American Properties has sued the township of Middletown and the township Planning Board over the unanimous denial of the company’s plan to build 245 town homes on a 31-acre site. 

Citing “arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable” regulations and rulings by both bodies, American Properties is asking a state Superior Court judge to overturn the denial of its application and strike down a local ordinance cited in the decision.

The developer is also seeking a ruling on whether Taylor Lane is a public or private roadway, which could require the township to forcibly acquire any private ownership rights to the road that bisects the development site. 

Attorneys for the township and the Planning Board said no court hearings had taken place as of May 5. 

Ronald Shimanowitz, the attorney for the American Properties application and the appeal, did not return a call seeking comment. 

In the appeal, filed on Feb. 28, the developer states that the proposed development of 196 market-rate town homes and 49 affordable housing units fully complies with the township’s zoning for the vacant site. 

The Planning Board’s unanimous resolution of denial, which came after 11 lengthy Planning Board hearings spanning all of 2013, stated that Taylor Lane is a “collector road” according to local and state regulations. 

As a result, the board said the proposed development must be set back 50 feet from Taylor Lane, a two-lane road that runs south from Route 35 past a residential community. 

“The applicant’s plan is too crowded, too tight to a busy road,” read the resolution of denial. “Locating homes within 25 feet of a busy collector road is just not good planning. “
Professionals for American Properties testified that Taylor Lane is actually a local road that would require a setback of only 10 feet. The application called for a 25-foot setback. 

In the suit, American Properties officials say the Planning Board did not decide that Taylor Lane was a collector road until the 11th and final hearing for the application, and did not mention the need for a variance prior to that night.

The board’s determination was also partly based on a Middletown road ordinance that is “arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and ambiguous” and needs to be voided, the complaint alleges. 

The ordinance, cited in the board’s denial, lays out specific criteria for a collector road, including the number of vehicles it carries, the number of lots it provides access to and whether it is “utilized by traffic other than residential in nature.” 

However, the board also recognized that the road ordinance “is not crystal clear,” referring at points to the township master plan, which does not designate Taylor Lane as either a local or collector road.

 Continue reading

NJ.Com: Middletown residents scrutinize controversial plans for all-girls school

This past Wednesday night there was a meeting of the Middletown Planning Board that I was unable to attend, I was interested in attending because the main focus of the meeting was the Trinity Hall application. The meeting was the first opportunity that The Chapel Hill Neighborhood Group (a group of residents who are opposing the construction of the all-girls school) had to cross examine the Trinity Hall experts on the application. I've spent the past two days looking for information on the meeting but hadn't seen anything on it until I stumble upon an article on NJ.com which I have reprinted a portion of below.

From what I can gather from reading the article, the meeting was an event to been seen. Middletown's courtroom was filled to capacity and overflowed out into the foyer with both  pro-Trinity supporters and members of the Chapel Hill Neighborhood Group. And to me after reading the article, it would seem that the people from Chapel Hill came out on top during this round after Trinity Hall's engineer got caught in a little white-lie about an environmental impact report that he authored for the prior developer of the property in question. He first denied being the author of the report then later admitted that he was after being questioned by Ron Gasiorowski, the lawyer representing residents of Chapel Hill. Gasiorowski also pointed out that Trinity's engineer was not an environmental expert who based his report on only things that he had read, not what he investigated.

It will be interesting to see what happens next when the Middletown Planning Board reconvenes in April. I think Trinity Hall's dream of building it's new school over on Chapel Hill Rd. took a hit Wednesday night, we'll have to see if they can recover from it. 

MIDDLETOWN - A standing room only crowd filled the township’s meeting room and lobby on Wednesday night for the continuation of the Planning Board hearing on the proposed construction of an all-girls secondary school.

Trinity Hall, a private all-girls high school that has been operating out of a temporary location on Leonardville Road since opening in September, is proposing to build a campus complete with three buildings, athletic fields, tennis courts and approximately 330 parking spaces on a 64-acre parcel off Chapel Hill Road.

The proposed campus would take up slightly less than 38 of those acres, therefore the applicant is requesting permission to subdivide the property. However, representatives for the applicant claimed Thursday night that there are no plans “at this time” to develop the remaining 26 acres.

Opponents of a proposal by Trinity Hall, a private all-girls high school, to build a campus off Chapel Hill Road in Middletown wore t-shirts calling for the application to be denied.

It was easy to tell who was for the development and who was against it at Thursday night’s meeting, as supporters donned the school color of orange and opponents wore pins displaying an image with Trinity Hall crossed out and/or off-white shirts with “Protect our SAFETY and our ENVIRONMENT” printed on one side and Trinity Hall crossed off on the other.

All of Thursday night’s nearly four-hour meeting was dedicated to the public cross examining the project’s engineer, Brian Decina, of French and Parrello Associates, on everything from traffic and environmental concerns to drainage and intensity of usage fears.

Most of the concerns voiced by opponents of the project Thursday night were of the perceived lack of knowledge, or concerns, the applicant's experts - and officials that have granted them conditional approval thus far - have of existing conditions on the property.

For example, Ron Gasiorowski, an attorney representing opponents of the project, read from township documents that emphasized the environmental and historical sensitivity of the property and McCreery’s Creek, which the document and residents alleged flows by the property.

However, Decina claimed that the state Department of Environmental Protection has determined on more than one occasion that a stream does not flow through the property.

“You can fish there!” someone in the crowd yelled out.

“How can you and the DEP say there isn’t a stream there? It’s there. Even Google knows its there,” another resident asked Decina.

Gasiorowski also took issue with an environmental impact report that Decina submitted for the project, which pulled a lot of information from a report Decina prepared for a previous applicant who was proposing to build 20 residential units on the 64-acre property.

At first Decina said he did not write the report and that he did not know who did. But then, only after Gasiorowski pointed out that he had signed the report as its author, he claimed that he was the author of the report.

“That’s incredulous testimony to me,” said Gasiorowski, who also took issue with Decina’s report because he was admittedly not an environmental expert but rather an engineer who made his determinations based on things he read....

Continue Reading

No Vacancy For Trinity Hall! Proposed Development Not A Fit For Historic Chapel Hill Neighborhood

The following blog post was submitted by Jennifer Valencia, a resident of Middletown's Chapel Hill area. Jennifer is a member of the Chapel Hill Neighborhood Group opposed to the choice of the Trinity Hall girls academy, to build its new school in their neighborhood, along Chapel Hill Road.  

--------

On March 19, 2014, the Middletown Township Planning Board will hold a third hearing concerning the application of Trinity Hall, LLC to subdivide a 67 acre tract of land on Chapel Hill Road and construct a high school campus on the lower 37 acres.

Not surprisingly there are two factions: the ones who think this is a bad idea, and the ones who think it is a good idea (namely the Applicant).

The folks who think this is a good idea have offered the following “facts” in support of that view (please note that the quotes below are just for emphasis). Those of us who think this is a bad idea are going to offer what we know as the actualities in response to those facts.

CLAIM: “If we don’t build a school there, 300 townhouses, some designated for low-income housing, will be built instead.”

TRUTH: In a word, no. Phone calls to the Planning Board to inquire as to the legitimacy of this statement were met with incredulity. One member told us that it was as likely the tract would be made “into a second Disneyland.”

CLAIM: “The plan was for a rock quarry first, before we came in and rescued the land with plans for a school.”

TRUTH: Of course, we diligently researched the issue and no, you cannot mine in a residential neighborhood.

CLAIM: “Our school is offering an education in the Catholic tradition.”

TRUTH: Possibly. But at this time, Bishop David M. O’Connell, C.M., of the Trenton Archdiocese, refuses to support Trinity Hall. He writes, “The school’s founders are using the expression, ‘in the Catholic tradition’ to describe Trinity Hall. That is not the same thing as being a ‘Catholic School’ and I simply want to make clear that this new institution is not affiliated with the Diocese of Trenton or our Office of Catholic Education.”

Yes, you heard right. This is not a Catholic school. It is also not an accredited school. It also has NO TRACK RECORD. What does this mean for the girls who attend the school? Their chances of graduating and being accepted to an upper echelon school is, at this time, an unknown commodity.

CLAIM: “Trinity Hall will preserve most of the open space and will also not develop approximately 30 acres leaving it undisturbed.”

TRUTH: Trinity supporters are claiming that the Applicant will preserve the large tract of land fronting Kings Highway. They circulated this claim wide and far. However, when residents asked them directly, at the first planning hearing, what they planned to do with this tract of land, THEY REFUSED TO ANSWER!

CLAIM: “75% of our student base will be bused in.”

TRUTH: This claim is extremely hard to believe. Half of Trinity’s projected 500 students will be of driving age. These are affluent students, whose parents will be paying more than $16,000 in tuition. You better believe they will have cars. Moreover, every student who is bused in must receive a stipend from the Township to the tune of $884.00 tax dollars a student. And that is this year’s going rate. By the time the school is built and these girls come a rollin’ in, you can bet that will go up. Do the math. 75% of 500 times $884 bucks….yeah, blows my mind too.

CLAIM:“We plan to build an access road from Stavola Road to the back edge of the school. This road will be a limited-use road, and will only be used by emergency vehicles. “

TRUTH: This access road will be squeezed in between two existing homes on Stavola Road. The construction of it alone with turn this once-quiet neighborhood into a construction vehicle circus. And will it truly be used for only “emergency vehicles” ? Or could it eventually become a cut-through for parents and students? Or, worst-case, for all the delivery trucks that might easily exceed the 4-ton limit on Chapel Hill Road and need an alternative route to access the school? Do we really want to find out?

CLAIM: “At the spot where we want to put the entrance to our school, Chapel Hill Road is only 19 feet wide.”

TRUTH: Yes, that is true. And why? Because no one ever intended a school to be built there. The road is narrow, winding…with hairpin turns and blind spots. It was the scene of 15 accidents in just 2012 alone.

So we must ask ourselves? Why is Trinity (the good neighbor that it claims to be) participating in such scare tactics and fear-mongering by spreading ridiculously false information? Answer: Because they are avoiding the truth. The truth is that the residents in the immediate Chapel Hill area, you know, the ones with all the “STOP TRINITY HALL DEVELOPMENT” signs on their lawns, the ones who attended the community meeting, do not want this school.

They vote, they pay taxes and they deserve to be safe in the neighborhood that we all love!

December 18, 2013 Middletown Planning Special Board & Middletown Township Public Library Meetings

Here are a couple of videos that I had meant to post earlier in the month but due to the holidays I missed posting hem in a timely manner. Both videos are rather long and I haven't had time to review them completely. The Planning Board meeting however did receive a write-up on Middletown Patch. It was at this meeting that the Planning Board was to give final approval for or against the Taylor Lane housing development. I believe that approval of the site plan for Taylor Lane was turned down and the developer is appealing.



The Library Board of Trustees Meeting was held this same night as the Planning Board meeting. Some questions were asked about the new library budget and lively discussion was held about the purchase, rental and subsequent loss of various DVD's and audio CD's. The discussion turned somewhat petty and really was more about how the library spends its funds at year end rather than how the DVD's and CD's are borrowed. Here is a copy of the meeting agenda.

IMPORTANT PLANNING BOARD MEETING Wed. OCTOBER 30, 6:30 pm

NJ Superior Court Judge Kapalko has handed down his decision on the Four Ponds/Avaya Appeal and has remanded the application back to the Middletown Planning Board, feeling that the Planning Board did not fully consider testimony by the applicant's Engineer and Planner. You can check the LVGA's  website where the Judge's decision will be posted in the coming days.

A special meeting of the Planning Board will take place at Town Hall on Wednesday, October 30th at 6:30pm. No new testimony will be given. The Board will discuss and consider a new updated resolution and then vote again on the Four Ponds/Avaya development application.

The Lincroft Village Green Association is looking for a strong resident turn out for this meeting! If you live in Lincroft  please attend and bring a friend or neighbor along with you. The final decision on the Avya redevelopment has not been made as of yet. Residents still need to show their opposition to this project.to ensure that it doesn't move forward.

The meeting notice and agenda were posted yesterday on the Township's website:
http://www.middletownnj.org/notices/read/f5fb2572

Never Leave It In The Hands Of The Judges

This letter also appears on Middletown Patch:

This expression, more commonly used in a boxing ring is also true in a courtroom in Freehold. Judge Lawrence M Lawson reversed the denial by the Middletown Planning board for construction of a White Castle restaurant in Port Monmouth on March 12, 2013. After reading legal briefs submitted by White Castle and Middletown Township, oral arguments by both attorneys and a review of evidence submitted to the court at the hearing on February 21, 2013. It all came down to one single word “IMPRACTICABLE”.

The definition of impracticable is: “incapable of being performed or accomplished by the means employed or at command”. 

(Final White Castle site plan)

This was the core issue that Judge Lawson based his reversal of the Planning board’s denial for the White Castle application. It all revolves around one of the townships ordinances that they did not comply with. There are actually 18 but this one ordinance is the reason the township attorney cited in the resolution to deny. Ordinance is #16-622 D-9 and it states:

“Parking lots or unloading areas of commercial, business, or industrial uses abutting residential uses shall provide a landscaped buffer screen at least fifty (50') feet wide on the perimeter of all parking or loading areas”.

Simply, parking spaces for commercial properties need to be 50 feet away from the property line of a residential home. White Castle originally gave 10 feet and eventually, through comments and direction of the Planning board, increased it to 24 feet. The board inquired if 8 or so of the 21 parking spots could be moved to another area on the property to eliminate the request for the exception to 16-622 D-9 and comply with the ordinance. White Castle’s engineering expert, William Stevens-Vice President of Professional Design Services in Lakewood NJ after being questioned by board member Kevin Settembrino at the March 7, 2012 planning board meeting testified that:

“Parking could be provided on the easterly portion of the site. That could be done”

At the same meeting White Castle’s professional planner, Ian Borden-President of Property Professional Design Services in Lakewood NJ testified:

“There’s eight parking spaces along the rear of the site and possibly one or more on the western parking spaces toward the southern portion of the site. If those were relocated to the eastern portion of the site, we would conform”.

Mr. Jason Greenspan, Director of Planning for Middletown Township, during a discussion with Mr. Borden about the distance between the relocated parking spots and the restaurant commented:

“So that distance is probably about .05 of a mile?”

Mr. Borden replied:

“I think it’s not really so much what a fraction of the mile it is. I think it’s more what’s convenient for the use”

Again the definition of impracticable is: incapable of being performed or accomplished by the means employed or at command. 

The criteria the judge must use to reverse the Planning Boards decision is that they acted arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable towards the applicant (White Castle). The movement of 8 or so parking spots that the applicants own experts testified could be done is somehow IMPRACTICABLE? How is the refusal of White Castle to move those parking spots considered arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable on the Township of Middletown? In the publication of Judge Lawson’s ruling he states:

“In considering the testimony at the hearings, and the exhibits presented to the Board, this court finds that the Plaintiff did, in fact, prove that compliance with the site plan requirements is impracticable”.

When both the applicants engineering and planning expert testify the parking can be moved it cannot be IMPRACTICABLE (incapable of being performed or accomplished by means employed or at command).

The denial was the correct legal decision by the Planning board based on the evidence that was presented by White Castle. The judge decided that White Castle’s “convenience” not to relocate parking spots is more important than the Township’s right to govern against overdevelopment and negative impacts on its community. The Planning board has authorized an appeal to overturn Judge Lawson’s ruling. I want to applaud them for fighting for everyone in the community.

There are many issues with White Castles plan but overdevelopment is the primary issue that affects everyone who lives in the area (See Photo). As you can see the entire lot is 1.67 acres because of the combination of 5 lots that created this jigsaw puzzle of property. Only 0.70 acres is used for the building, parking lot and drive thru service. The entire front yard is a storm water basin designed to spill onto Highway 36 during a storm event. The entrance is located within an acceleration lane about 100 feet from the entrance ramp to HWY 36 off Main St. These are the issues where they DO NOT COMPLY with Middletown’s ordinances. Local residents are still opposed to this development. All we ask is for White Castle to comply with all of Middletown’s building codes.

Shannon Ecklof

Chestnut St

Port Monmouth

White Castle Update: The Fight Isn't Over, Middletown Planning Board Intends to Appeal Judge's Decision

Since learning last week that the NJ Superior Court and Judge Lawrence Lawson, overturned the decision of the Middletown Planning Boards to deny the fast food chain White Castle from building a restaurant on an undersized lot located between Main Street and Wilson Ave., on highway 36 in Port Monmouth, I’ve been in contact with Chestnut Street resident Shannon Ecklof. Ecklof has been leading the fight against White Castle sliding into the lot that butts up to his back yard and wrote the letter, ”They can’t fit 10lbs of White Castle in a 2lb bag” that appeared on this blog back in March of 2012. He has informed me that he and his neighbors haven’t given up on their fight against the White Castle.


Shannon informed me that he and his neighbors knew of Judge Lawson’s decision on the day it was handed down last month and that their attorney attended the April 3rd meeting of the planning board in response to discuss it.

At the planning board meeting, their lawyer asked the board if they had any plans to appeal Judge Lawson’s decision. After a brief discussion, it was decided by unanimous vote that the planning board would appeal.
I was also informed that they (Shannon and others) have since met in the Mayor’s office, where they were told by mayor Scharfenberger, the township would not appeal unless they thought they had a good chance of overturning Judge Lawson’s opinion. They would not waste tax payer’s money fighting a lost cause because of public scrutiny over township spending, but they were confident in a positive outcome and an appeal should be forthcoming.

For Shannon Eckof and others that live in the vicinity of where the White Castle wants to build, the news that the township and planning board are planning to appeal is welcomed. As a matter of law (and common sense in my opinion), it would seem that the planning board was right to deny White Castle’s application, it just doesn’t make sense to cut corners in order to squeeze a site plan that would normally require a 3 acre parcel of land onto a lot half that size.

Depending on the courts, the appeal of Judge Lawson’s decision could take anywhere between 6 months to 2 years to be heard according to Ecklof’s attorney. So don’t expect to be driving into a White Castle location in Port Monmouth anytime soon, it could be awhile or not at all.

We’ll keep you posted.

White Castle Coming To Port Monmouth; NJ Superior Court Overturns Middletown Planning Board Application Denial

It looks as though White Castle will be "sliding" a restaurant onto a vacant piece of land between Main street and Wilson Avenue in Port Monmouth after all. After having their application denied by the Middletown Planning Board last year, White Castle System, Inc. appealed the decision to the New Jersey Superior Court and on March 26th of this year, the NJ Superior Court ruled in favor of White Castle and overturned the Middletown Planning Board.


The ruling by the Superior Court states that all preliminary and final site plan approvals, including site design waivers, to permit White Castle to construct and operate a  restaurant with a drive-thru on property has been approved by the court and can move forward.

It seems now that the area residents, who strongly opposed the construction of the White Castle, will need to hire their own attorney if they wish to continue their fight and appeal the decision of the Superior Court that will be built in their backyards.

Below is the notice of the Courts decision that appeared in the pages of the Asbury Park Press public notice section yesterday:

TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLETOWN

NOTICE OF DECISION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Superior Court of New Jersey, by its Order dated March 26, 2013, resulting from an action entitled White Castle System, Inc. vs. Planning Board of The Township of Middletown, Docket No. MON-L-2139-12, reversed the April 4, 2012 denial by the Township of Middletown Planning Board of White Castle System, Inc.'s ("Applicant") application, and granted preliminary and final site plan approval, including site design waivers, to permit the Applicant to construct and operate a White Castle restaurant with a drive-thru on property located at 382 Route 36, Township of Middletown, Monmouth County, New Jersey, also known as Block 533, Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 15 as shown on the current Tax Map of the Township of Middletown. A copy of the Order with respect to the above matter is on file for public inspection in the office of the Planning Department located in the Town Hall, 1 Kings Highway, Middletown, New Jersey, during regular business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m), Monday through Friday. By: Price, Meese, Shulman & D'Arminio, P.C. Attorneys for Applicant, White Castle System, Inc. By: Reginald Jenkins, Jr., Esq. ($35.00) 721344
Public Notice ID: 20058532

April 1, 2013 Middletown Township Committee Meeting

 Here's a quick rundown for  Monday night's Workshop Meeting of the Middletown Township Committee (if you couldn't make it, like mostly everyone else, watch the video and follow a long):

There was a presentation given to the Township Committee by a representative of Good Energy. This representative wants the township to participate in an effort to get cheaper electric rates for its residents by helping them to purchase their electricity from the company.

There also was a public hearing on an ordinance to auction some property on Unity Court, which was adopted. Another public hearing to accept the new flood elevations set by FEMA was not adopted. After a vote of 2 for and 2 against, it was determined that the vote would be rescheduled until the next meeting so more information could be obtained from the Planning Board.

Committeemen Fiore and Settembrino both voted not to adopt the new elevations. Mr. Fiore said he asked the Planning Board twice for advice and did not get a response. Mr. Settembrino, who sits on the Planning Board gave no reason for his vote.

Township Committee comments begin at the 49:20 mark of the video and it is followed by public comments.



As always, you can download a copy of the meeting agenda that contains the discussion items and the proposed resolutions and ordinances that were voted on or presented during the meeting. A box around an item is a link, bringing you further into the document to that resolution or ordinance. At the end of the resolution there will be a link bringing you back to the agenda. Attached to this agenda is also the monthly bill list, so that everyone can see how the Township is spending our tax dollars