A ‘Welcome to Berkeley Township’ sign in South Seaside Park. (Photo: Daniel Nee)
A day after the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that South Seaside Park, located at the southern tip of Ocean County’s northern barrier island, can leave the jurisdiction of its mainland municipal government, the mayor of Seaside Park – the independent borough the neighborhood has fought to join – said his town would begin the process of formally studying the pros and cons of annexing the section.
A large group of South Seaside Park residents waged a decade-long battle to break free from Berkeley Township, arguing it takes – during the winter – a half hour or more to visit town hall, the police station, and access municipal services. In the summer, it can take more than double, they claimed, having to drive through at least three other towns at minimum to reach the government complex on Pinewald-Keswick Road. Berkeley Township’s property values are also lower than those on the barrier island, meaning that on an equalized scale, the owner of an average-priced home in South Seaside Park would pay significantly more for the same municipal services than their notional “neighbors” 30 minutes west on the mainland. There have also been concerns over the availability of police officers and emergency services.
A smaller pool of residents, particularly those in Midway Beach and some other property owners that enjoy private beach access, have raised concerns in the opposite direction. They have expressed worry about their autonomy as private properties owners and whether being annexed by Seaside Park would lead to them having to abide by ordinances that already exist in another town. Those matters include complex items such as zoning and building codes, to more everyday issues such as beach rules. Officials have told Shorebeat, however, that in the event of an annexation, the borough would likely continue to treat private beaches as such.
Regardless of which side of the issue one falls, this week’s Supreme Court decision only provided South Seaside Park the right to seek a new municipal government – it does not compel Seaside Park to accept the neighborhood into its jurisdiction, much less declare that the jurisdiction has changed. To the contrary, the decision sets forth a formalized process by which Seaside Park must abide if it wishes to annex its southern neighbor. Now that the decision has been handed down by the court, South Seaside Park itself must file a petition formally seeking annexation.
“There is a process and procedures that have to be adhered-to, and we can assume that the plaintiffs would be filing a petition,” said Seaside Park Mayor John Peterson. “No such petition has been received by the borough of Seaside Park as of yet, so as we speak, there has been nothing formal received from the South Seaside Park property owners.”
“I would assume that that is something they’re contemplating doing at their first opportunity,” he surmised. “I suspect they will have to have a formal meeting to discuss that as a group. I think they are having such a meeting next Saturday.”
In its decision in Whiteman v. Township Council of Berkeley Township, the court’s majority wrote that simply by way of geography, South Seaside Park residents already rely more on their northern neighbor than their own municipal government.
“Plaintiffs presented evidence that South Seaside Park residents rely more on Seaside Park than the township for emergency services and engage more with the residents and businesses of Seaside Park than with the Township’s mainland community,” the decision stated.”
The court also acknowledged that Berkeley Township hired a professional planner “who did not impartially analyze the evidence” presented by barrier island residents, instead relying on the planner to bolster its case to prevent the neighborhood from leaving. Presumably, Berkeley Township would be opposed to losing a valuable tax ratable base, largely consisting of residents who use minimal services since many reside there part-time, with extraordinarily low rates of crime and utilities usage.
The court ruled that South Seaside Park residents met “all three prongs” of a legal test set forth in state land use statutes that determines whether a portion of a municipality can secede – formally known as “de-annexation.” Ultimately, geography was a major factor in the court’s decision, with the justices holding that two lower courts were correct when they agreed with the South Seaside Park residents. Berkeley Township appealed both of those rulings.
“Both courts’ findings are substantially premised on the most compelling factors in plaintiffs’ favor: the geographic distance between South Seaside Park and the Township’s mainland section and the time and effort required for residents to traverse seven municipalities and reach the mainland, where virtually all municipal facilities are located,” the decision stated.
Peterson, himself a retired Superior Court judge, pledged Seaside Park would participate in the statutory process if the South Seaside Park residents file a petition.
“If such a formal petition is received by Seaside Park, our governing body would have to engage in the process referenced in the statute, which would involve a thorough review of all the benefits and detriments – and any unanswered questions about what would happen,” he said.
The process would likely include consulting with professionals such as attorneys, planners and financial advisors on the effects of annexing South Seaside Park.
“The 40-page decision just came out yesterday morning,” he said, “so our governing body hasn’t had a chance to review it with our attorney and deliberate over it, but I assume that will come soon.”
Read the Decision:
South Seaside Park Decision by Shorebeat on Scribd
Seaside Heights & Seaside Park
Star-Studded Cold War Spy Thriller To Be Filmed in Seaside Park in July
Seaside Heights & Seaside Park
Hovnanian Development in Seaside Heights Takes Shape, Sets Pricing
Shore Environment
Waves Wallop Ortley Beach, Ocean Roars As ‘Erin’ Remains Offshore
