DUI Lawyers in Upper Freehold, NJ

Five-minute read

Asbury Park Press

UPPER FREEHOLD - Residents of Allentown watched as Matt Tomaso, an archaeologist, highlighted possible British encampments on the west of the borough.

Tomaso, who was hired as a historical consultant by the developer Active Acquisitions LLC of a proposed 453,720-square-foot warehouse, displayed a 1778 Revolutionary War map, part of the campaign that led to the Battle of Monmouth on June 28, 1778.

“The map is used for surveillance and reconnaissance of the Continental troops and (British) Major (John) André probably drew dozens of these in the course of a few days to provide that information as quickly as possible.” Tomaso said. “This encampment was two days long.”

In both the March and April planning board meetings, over a hundred residents from both Allentown and Upper Freehold showed up, some with signs protesting the development, concerned with both how the warehouse might trample over history and how it could build up modern-day traffic.

The proposed warehouse development would split the farm formerly known as the Stein property into two separate properties. Each lot would contain a warehouse. Building A would measure 248,393 square feet with 44 loading docks and Building B would measure 205,327 square feet with 37 loading docks. The warehouses are built on speculation and two separate owners could potentially own each separate building with two different tenants. The proposed development is dubbed AAESAF Property.

While the property is located in Upper Freehold, there would be about 100 feet of buffer between the backyards of Allentown residents living on Probasco Drive and Building A.

Last fall, residents protested the development with signs demanding to preserve the site and ban trucks from entering the borough.

Tomaso said he was brought on board the project earlier than the typical review process because “the applicant made the decision to begin (addressing) the issue immediately.”

He said the review of the historic literature revealed the possible encampment and the next step, which could begin this summer, would be to use ground penetrating radar and electromagnetic resistivity (EMS) tools to determine soil conditions and find magnetic objects.

“We’re also doing invasive studies,” Tomaso said. “That includes shovel testing.”

Upper Freehold Mayor Robert Frascella, who sits on the township’s planning board, questioned the map’s authenticity. He said Allentown had a different spelling in the 1700s.

Tomaso said he is not concerned with the map’s spelling and has no reasons to doubt the map’s authenticity.

Roundabouts for traffic

The developer has also proposed a roundabout for the entrance of the proposed site. The developer’s traffic engineer, Dan Disario, said the developer met with the county, which asked that the roundabout be installed. The reasoning is that it would give trucks more than one chance to turn away from Allentown. He said eventually the county would like two roundabouts at both ends of the borough to prevent trucks from entering.

Board member Joseph Covello asked that the developer redo its traffic study because the counts were done on a day that school was a half day. Board member Patricia Dorey said she disagreed with the accuracy of the traffic report, as she said dump trucks have caused traffic backups.

Disario agreed to conduct another count, but argued that the traffic counts are conservative and the afterwork peak hour counts do not overlap with school hours.

In total, Disario estimated that in a 24-hour period on an average weekday, a total of 790 vehicles would enter and leave the site. Of the 790 vehicles, 510 would be cars and 280 would be trucks. Disario said there would be no discernable change in traffic, which was booed by residents.

Mayor Frascella said the “the worst offenders” are school buses and school kids and not tractor trailers and dump trucks during peak hours.

Attorney Stuart Lieberman, hired by neighboring Allentown to represent its interests, questioned whether Frascella and Township Committeeman Stephen Alexander could vote on the application. He said the two members had made prior comments expressing disdain for intervention by Monmouth County that could reduce the township’s tax revenue. The county had expressed an interest in buying the property to preserve it.

Planning board attorney Matthew Kalwinsky disagreed, saying as long as the board members can make impartial decisions, then recusals are not necessary.

Flooding worries

Due to past flooding, Allentown has been concerned about the proposed development exacerbating its stormwater management issues.

Michael Schweitzer, who authored the environmental impact statement for the developer, said the development would have no detrimental impacts on anything sensitive. He said the report was dated May 2023 and originally found no archeological sites, but has since been updated.

The developer’s engineer, Tung-To Lam, said stormwater from the site would stay on the site.

Lieberman asked about how the development could affect township services, air quality and noise levels.

Schweitzer declined to answer those questions, stating that he was not an expert, but members of his firm performed the tests.

The developer’s planner, Christine Nazzaro-Cofone, said the proposed development largely conforms with Upper Freehold’s township ordinances and zoning. She said warehouses are allowed to be built in that part of town and the proposal only requires two variances and two waivers from the planning board. The two variances are for the proposed roundabout and the loading dock sizes. The two waivers are for the lack of sidewalks and the shape of the lot closest to Interstate 195.

Lieberman said the state has different planning areas and the location of the proposed warehouse is not in a location that the state finds appropriate. He argued that Monmouth County’s master plan discourages warehouses.

Nazzaro-Cofone said she disagreed with that interpretation.

Allentown will bring its own set of engineers and other professionals to the next meeting at 6 p.m. Tuesday, June 4 in Stone Bridge Middle School.

Olivia Liu is a reporter covering transportation, Red Bank and western Monmouth County. She can be reached at oliu@gannett.com.

Four-minute read

Asbury Park Press

UPPER FREEHOLD - Shouts of “Shame!”, “Sell outs!” and “Vote them out!” erupted Tuesday night after the planning board voted overwhelmingly to approve a controversial warehouse complex totaling 453,720 square feet that would sit less than 100 feet from a residential neighborhood in Allentown.

Nine planning board members — Mayor Robert Frascella, Committeeman Stephen Alexander, Joe Covello, Anthony Garaguso, Douglas Raynor, Jim Rosenbauer, Richard Stern, Mike McGuire and Christopher Hemlinger — voted to approve the warehouse complex, which has seen over 100 residents speak out over 10 months against the applicant in public comments.

Board member Patricia Dorey was the sole vote against the application, arguing that such a large development was inappropriate so close to residential homes.

Allentown Mayor Thomas Fritts said the historic village intends to pursue litigation to prevent the warehouse, which would be built on speculation and potentially run 24 hours for seven days a week, from being developed.

'Fighting this to the very, very end'

“100% yes,” he said of a lawsuit after the vote. “We have many reasons to appeal and we also have the resources to do so. So, we have put ourselves in the position that we plan on fighting this to the very, very end.”

Upper Freehold resident Sue Kozel also said the fight to preserve the land between Allentown and Interstate 195 was not over. She hopes that either Monmouth County or the state will preserve the land.

Since February, 10 planning board meetings have been devoted to hearing the controversial warehouse development, dubbed AAESUF by the Wall-based developer Active Acquisitions.

On Tuesday, Allentown’s attorney Stuart Lieberman gave his closing arguments. He noted that about half of residents speaking out against the development were from Allentown while the other half were from Upper Freehold.

“We are joined at the hip. Maybe we’re two separate political entities, but we’re really all one,” Lieberman said, referring to the many comments that highlighted Allentown’s historic role as the downtown to Upper Freehold.

“They’re your people. They’re your constituents,” he continued. “They don’t want the flooding; and they don’t want the traffic; and they don’t want the flooding of the basements on Probasco and they don’t want to hear the OSHA sounds from the trucks backing up — beep-beep-beep-beep. And they don’t want the disturbance; and they don’t want this community to be irreversibly changed and modified.”

He said that Allentown’s municipal engineer, who did an analysis of the warehouse’s stormwater and wastewater systems, used the developer’s own data and argued flooding would be guaranteed.

He argued that the plan was doing too much on such a site and the plans should have gone to the zoning board. And he said the environmental impact statement claiming that the warehouse would not have an impact on noise and pollution, but would add to the economy, was not backed up with data.

He argued that the board should take in consideration the state Department of Environmental Protection’s denial of the developer’s wetlands permit, which is currently in appeal.

'A lot of emotion'

The developer’s attorney, Craig Gianetti, called the opposition to the warehouses “a lot of emotion.”

He argued that the development conformed to the zone and that the project was improved by being broken up into two warehouses instead of one large block.

He questioned Allentown’s municipal engineer’s assessment of the project, arguing that the data points provided were already the worst-case scenarios. He said the issue brought up by Allentown’s engineer was not that the project does not comply with the Department of Environmental Protection requirements, but that it doesn’t go beyond the minimum requirements.

“There’s already flooding in the basements of Probasco Drive. It’s an existing condition. Our issue is we can’t make the situation worse,” Gianetti said.

He listed a number of conditions that the developer agreed to, including placing an underground barrier between the warehouse and the residential homes, placing a fence between the two properties and adding truck clearance barriers to prevent trucks from parking on the side closest to the homes. And he argued that a proposed roundabout would reduce truck traffic into the historic village.

Gianetti argued that there were no requirements to calculate the project’s impact on emergency services or go above and beyond the state requirements on protecting threatened and endangered species.

He said if archaeological items were found on site, they would be archived, but finding historic objects would not preclude the site from being developed. Some opponents of the project have argued the site was the home of a British encampment during the 1778 Battle of Monmouth campaign during the American Revolution.Dorey, who was the sole vote against the application, said she was uncomfortable with the warehouses being so close to residential homes, “I think this is a disaster. These buildings need to be in Raritan Center or Matrix or Centerton Square. They don’t need to be at this site.”

Olivia Liu is a reporter covering transportation, Red Bank and western Monmouth County. She can be reached at oliu@gannett.com.