Beaton property application expected to go through
Chairman says he hopes township will continue trying to buy property
BY JENNIFER DOME
Staff Writer

BRICK — The Planning Board will most likely approve a preliminary major subdivision for the Beaton family’s property off Beverly Beach Road at its meeting Jan. 26.

At the board’s workshop meeting Jan. 19, an informal poll of the board revealed that three of the 11 board members present would vote against the application. However, only nine full members of the board will give their formal vote Jan. 26. The two alternates who voted last week, Richard Gross and Domenick Brando, who voted ‘yes’ and ‘no’ respectively, will only vote if another board member is absent.

Judith Fox-Nelson, the Planning Board’s secretary, stressed that the poll taken Jan. 19 does not necessarily indicate what the vote will be on Jan. 26.

Professionals for the Beaton family began presenting their testimony to the board on Jan. 12. The audience that night consisted of at least 60 residents who told board members about endangered or threatened wildlife that they saw on or near the Beaton property.

Nicholas Montenegro, the applicant’s attorney, said that if the Planning Board approves, the Beaton family would like to create seven lots on the property — six for residential homes and one for a detention basin. The property consists of 10 acres located east of Beverly Beach Road on the Manasquan River and has been in the Beaton family since the 1960s.

Last year, the Township Council discussed buying the property for preservation/conservation after residents who live in the area pleaded with council members to save the land. Township officials have said they are involved in discussions with the Beatons, particularly David Beaton, son of the landowner Sylvia Beaton.

Earlier this month, Township Business Administrator Scott MacFadden said that the township is still interested in buying the property and just because the Beatons are before the Planning Board doesn’t mean they won’t be able to.

Mayor Joseph Scarpelli, who said he met with residents who live near the Beaton property before the Planning Board meeting last week, said he intends to continue negotiations for the land.

“We would like to negotiate a fair price,” the mayor said. He echoed MacFadden’s statement that the Planning Board hearings don’t stop the negotiations or the township’s ability to use condemnation if need be.

Following the board’s workshop meeting last week, Montenegro said that if the township is interested in buying the property, they are welcome to approac him on behalf of David Beaton.

The bulk of the discussion at the applicant’s first appearance before the board surrounded a disagreement of whether or not endangered or threatened species lived on the property. The applicant’s environmental management specialist, John Zingis, said that to his knowledge “there are no threatened or endangered species in the area.”

Board members said they are concerned with whether or not that’s true, as they saw residents’ pictures of yellow-crowned herons, bald eagles and other species near the Beaton property. Before giving their vote in the informal poll, the board members encouraged residents to inform the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) of their sightings.

Many board members said they regretted that there was no legal reason for them to vote against the application; while a few said not having the CAFRA permit, or Coastal Area Facility Review Act permit, left them uncomfortable with approving the application.

Zingis said that he expects to submit a full report on his findings to the state for a (CAFRA) permit in a month and should receive their response in six months or less.

Some board members also said they were unhappy with the applicant’s decision not to grant a conservation easement for about one acre of the property. The tract of land is adjacent to another property on Herbertsville Road, with a small piece abutting Beverly Beach Road and the rest along the Deep Creek. As the applicant proposed, the land would have been included in lot 3.01, but board members decided they would like to conserve it since it is the area that is most environmentally sensitive.

The land may be subject to a ruling by the DEP for public access, board attorney Charles Tivenan said. But if not, the board decided that it should be set aside for a conservation easement without vehicle access.

Before the informal poll was taken to see if the board members would approve the application, Kelly said the board was required to handle the case on its own merits. Board members could not let the township’s possible negotiations to buy the property come into play.

“It’s unique,” Kelly said before saying yes during the informal poll. “But the family had a plan for it and the plan is coming.

“It’s sad that Brick Township could lose this piece of property,” the chairman continued. “But as presented to the board, I have to say yes.”

The official, formal vote on the Beaton application was expected to take place at the board’s Jan. 26, which began at 7 p.m. at the municipal building, Chambers Bridge Road.