Plan for expansive complex in woodlands questioned

BRICK TOWNSHIP — A proposal to construct eight office buildings and two distribution centers on a 36.73-acre wooded property along Cedar Bridge Avenue sparked questions from residents about traffic, flooding, environmental impacts and building heights during the Nov. 9 planning board meeting.

The board did not take final action during the evening’s hearing, which is scheduled to continue Jan. 27 at 7 p.m.

Avenue Holdings LP is seeking preliminary and final site plan approval for the 511,676-square-foot development. The land use application, Avenue Holdings LP, lists Oded Kariti of Toms River, David Grunberger of Lakewood and David Kahan of Toms River as business partners.

The property is located on the south side of Cedar Bridge Avenue, near the Garden State Parkway interchange and the Brick-Lakewood town lines. Although the property borders Lakewood Township, all proposed construction would take place within Brick Township. The site is also near the Brick Lake Park residential neighborhood and Lowe’s Home Improvement store.

Attorney John P. Doyle, of Carluccio, Leone, Dimon, Doyle, Gutman & Petro, represented the applicants and explained that his clients purchased the property in 2021.

“This is obviously a very significant application,” Doyle said.

The property is located within the township’s B-3 Highway Development Zone, which permits office buildings and distribution centers.

“Distribution centers and offices are of the principal uses allowed in this zone,” Doyle said.

In addition to office buildings and distribution centers, the township’s B-3 Highway Development Zone permits a variety of other uses, including retail stores, restaurants, bars, banks, for-profit private schools, fitness and recreational facilities, personal service businesses, medical facilities, assisted living facilities, nursing homes, microbreweries, craft distilleries, boat showrooms, municipal buildings and public libraries. Certain uses are subject to additional zoning requirements.

During public comment, Brick resident Scott Lloyd questioned whether the proposed buildings could eventually be used for other purposes.

Doyle explained that changing the proposed uses could require additional approvals from the township.

“We’d have to come back here probably for a revised or amended site plan,” Doyle said.

During his opening statement, Doyle told the board that the applicants were not seeking variances.

However, engineer Timothy Lurie, of Newlines Land Consultants, later testified that the application includes a height variance for the proposed office buildings.

“The building height allowed is 3 stories and 35 feet,” Lurie said. “This is where we are requesting a variance for the height to 38.42 which is a C variance.”

Lurie explained that the eight proposed office buildings would each have a footprint of approximately 10,100 square feet and contain three floors, totaling approximately 30,300 square feet per building.

The development would include two entrances along Cedar Bridge Avenue, with turning lanes to accommodate vehicles entering the property.

The Brick Township Police Department has requested that the applicants install a new traffic signal near the development to help manage traffic along Cedar Bridge Avenue. The signal would be installed at the applicant’s expense.

The plans also include 948 parking spaces, exceeding the 947 required under township regulations. Of those spaces, 87 would be designated for electric vehicles, while 35 would be handicapped-accessible or parking spaces.

Lurie testified that the property is currently entirely wooded and includes wetlands along its southern portion. He explained that the applicants obtained a stream encroachment permit in 2023 and have conducted soil testing throughout the site. The proposed stormwater management system would include infiltration basins, manufactured treatment devices and pervious pavement.

“The DEP will also review the stormwater,” Lurie said.

Board member Kevin Nugent questioned the property’s proximity to the Garden State Parkway and requested a map identifying the jurisdictional boundary.

Nugent also questioned whether the applicant’s Coastal Area Facility Review Act application would include both the Brick and Lakewood properties.

“I was involved in the pre-application meeting with CAFRA and they wanted this to be a combined application,” Lurie said.

Residents raise traffic and environmental impact

During public comment, resident Sally Stoneham questioned the status of the CAFRA application and whether environmental studies had been conducted to identify endangered species and potential impacts on nearby waterways.

Lurie explained that the applicants previously met with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to review the required studies.

“We are working towards putting those submissions together for the DEP,” Lurie said.

He added that certain studies must be conducted during specific seasons and that the applicants were awaiting results from a study completed during the summer.

Several residents also questioned how the development could affect traffic and flooding in surrounding neighborhoods.

Brick Township resident Madeline Colagiovanni-Iannarone raised concerns about the number of parking spaces and the additional vehicles that could travel through the area.

“You suggested that there were 940 parking spaces,” Colagiovanni-Iannarone said. “I did write that down because I am concerned about 940 people coming down a paper street that is not vacated yet.”

Resident Keith Donnelly raised concerns about flooding in nearby neighborhoods and questioned whether the proposed stormwater management system would be sufficient.

“We got six inches of water on Saturday in my neighborhood,” Donnelly said.

Lurie explained that the stormwater management systems were designed to allow runoff to infiltrate into the ground.

“Is this little system going to be able to handle the water runoff that we are talking about?” Donnelly asked.

Resident Vince Johnson questioned how the development could affect traffic and the quality of life of residents in Brick Lake Park.

“Will it take me 45 minutes to get out of my compound to go down Route 70?” Johnson asked.

“This is going to become a horror show,” he said.

Other residents questioned the proposed distribution centers and what products would be handled at the facilities.

“So in regards to the distribution centers, what exactly are we distributing?” resident Coralee Fischer asked.

“It’s hard to figure that out until you have a tenant,” Doyle responded.

Building design and height concerns

Melissa Rub, of BF Design Studio and Architectural Services in Lakewood, testified regarding the proposed architectural design of the office buildings.

Rub described the buildings as having a “clean contemporary industrial look” and explained that each would include three floors with 10-foot ceilings.

She said the proposed ceiling heights were part of the reason the applicants were requesting a height variance.

Rub also explained that the township’s architectural review committee recommended changes to the proposed exterior color scheme, including the use of earth tones.

“It is our intent to revise the color scheme to reflect earth tones and not as stark coloring as we have here tonight,” Rub said.

She agreed to present revised architectural renderings at the next hearing.

Board member Art Halloran also questioned whether backup generators would be installed and raised concerns about potential noise impacts on nearby residents.

Rub said generators were possible but that the applicants had not yet finalized those details.

During public comment, Colagiovanni-Iannarone questioned why the applicants could not reduce the office buildings to two stories to eliminate the need for a height variance.

“Why are you coming with a variance on height? For what reason? You can’t go to two stories?” Colagiovanni-Iannarone asked.

She also referenced Doyle’s opening statement that the applicants were not seeking variances.

“I mean you were asked to come with no variances but yet you came,” she said.

Doyle responded that the proposed building height remained part of the application.

Colagiovanni-Iannarone also expressed concerns about the visibility of the proposed buildings from surrounding neighborhoods.

“We are a shore community and we would like to keep it that way,” she said.

Stoneham similarly questioned whether the proposed architectural design would be appropriate for Brick Township.

“We are Brick, New Jersey. We are not a modern, clean-concept office-building town,” Stoneham said. “We are a Shore town, not of glitz and glam.”

This is an excerpt of the print article. For more on this story, read The Ocean Star—on newsstands Friday or online in our e-Edition.

Check out our other Brick Township stories, updated daily. And remember to pick up a copy of The Ocean Star—on newsstands Friday or online in our e-Edition.

Subscribe today! If you're not already an annual subscriber to The Ocean Star, get your subscription today! For just $42 per year, you will receive local mail delivery weekly, with pages and pages of local news and online access to our e-edition on Starnewsgroup.com.