FREEHOLD – A critical ruling anticipated on a lawsuit challenging the Howell Planning Board’s approval of three warehouse projects was postponed when a bomb threat prompted the courthouse to close just an hour before the scheduled hearing.
The lawsuit, filed by two dozen residents with Howell and Freehold addresses, takes aim at the Howell Planning Board and the companies involved in developing three large warehouse sites. The case, known as Perretta, et al. v. Township of Howell Planning Board, et al., raises significant concerns about the planning board’s decisions and the potential impact of these developments on the local community.
According to the legal papers filed by attorney Benet Susser on behalf of the 24 plaintiffs, the Howell Planning Board made several key errors in its approval process. Among them is the failure of the board to consider the cumulative effect of approving three massive warehouses within one mile of each other. The three applications in question involve:
29 Howell Road: This project covers approximately 29.6 acres directly across from the Howell Swim Club. The proposal is for two, one-story warehouse buildings totaling 424,565 square feet with office space. The two buildings will also include a combined total of 93 loading docks and four drive-in bays with additional parking.
375 Fairfield Road: This site spans about 49.3 acres and is situated across from a newly constructed warehouse with leasing signs posted out front. Two warehouse buildings totaling 503,956 square feet were approved for this location. The proposal also calls for 82 loading bays, four drive-in bays and additional parking.
308 and 413 Fairfield Road: This application pertains to roughly 11.8 acres of property located on Fairfield Road. A one-story building totaling 202,000 square feet is proposed for this site with office space. The warehouse is slated to have 25 loading bays, two drive-in bays and parking space.
The applicant for all three projects was identified as AAFFHW Property LLC, whose parent company is believed to be Active Acquisitions LLC. An individual named Seth Gerszberg has been identified as the owner of the applicant companies.
This isn’t the first time that approval of the 29 Howell Road project has come under fire. The Planning Board’s approval for a warehouse in February 2023 came after the case was initially denied and remanded back to the board for approval.
The plaintiffs say that the Planning Board should have known that the same owner sought approval for all three warehouses and required a report on the cumulative effect of the approvals. They base their assertions on a portion of the township’s master plan that changed in 2021.
According to the plaintiffs, the planning board’s approval of these projects will result in significant changes to the area, including increased truck traffic and operations around the clock, seven days a week. They argue that such developments could severely impact the local environment and quality of life for residents, including those who frequent nearby facilities such as a Little League sports field, a recreation center, and a Wawa convenience store.
A central issue in the lawsuit is the plaintiffs’ contention that the Environmental Impact Reports submitted for each of the three applications did not account for the cumulative impact of all three projects. They allege that the reports were insufficient and did not address how the combined effects of these warehouses would affect the surrounding area. Furthermore, the plaintiffs claim that the reports were not even requested by the planning board or its professionals, which they believe undermines the approval process.
Another point of contention is the use of Zoom during public meetings. The plaintiffs claim that this remote format limited public interaction and engagement, which would have been more effective if conducted in person. This limitation, they argue, further compromised the fairness of the approval process.
On the other side, attorney Robert Simon, who represents AAFFHW Property LLC and Active Acquisitions, LLC, is pushing for the court to dismiss the case entirely or at least separate some of the claims.
Simon contends that the application for 29 Howell Road should be considered independently from the other two projects. He argues that this particular application was processed before the other two and should not be subject to the same cumulative impact review, especially since it was already remanded back to the planning board following an initial denial.
Simon also challenges the plaintiffs’ request for discovery, which includes internal communications between the various LLCs involved and depositions of key figures like Seth Gerszberg. He argues that these requests are not warranted and should not influence the court’s decision on the case.
The plaintiffs, however, maintain that obtaining discovery is crucial to understanding the full scope of the issues at hand. They believe that internal communications and depositions will shed light on the planning and decision-making processes behind the warehouse projects, helping to reveal whether there were any attempts to address cumulative impacts or other concerns.
The court plans to make its decision on how to proceed after hearing from the attorneys from both sides in person.
