Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and developer press Bernards Township to address blighted Lord Sterling School property
Summary
At the July 29 Bernards Township Committee meeting, residents and the property owner urged action on the long‑vacant Lord Sterling School site at 99 Lord Sterling Road, calling it blighted and asking the township to authorize a planning‑board study under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. Committee members said they would review options but took no formal redevelopment vote.
Michael Silbert, an attorney for Lord Sterling Property LLC, told the Bernards Township Committee on July 29 that the former Lord Sterling School at 99 Lord Sterling Road has become "a magnet for trespassing, vandalism, underage drinking, and other unsafe activity," and showed photographs he said document hate‑filled graffiti inside the buildings.
Silbert urged the committee to authorize the planning board to conduct a preliminary investigation under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law to determine whether the roughly 11‑acre site qualifies as an "area in need of redevelopment." He said the owner does not seek high‑density housing or a new school but envisions a low‑density, buffered residential community that would include several units for individuals with special needs.
Residents who spoke during the public‑comment period backed the owner’s request to move the property toward redevelopment. Longtime neighbors described broken windows, dumped trash, and safety concerns; some said they had met the developer, John Rocker, and supported his plan. Tom Sherr, director of housing at nonprofit Our House Inc., told the committee his agency serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and said partnerships with receptive developers are needed to expand community‑based residential options.
Several speakers linked the redevelopment request to the township’s affordable‑housing obligations. Real‑estate professional Eric Kaufman said the proposal would not add school‑age children and estimated the township is facing roughly 700 additional units in other developments; Kaufman and others emphasized that the owner’s plan would include 4–6 special‑needs units within a low‑density community.
Committee members said they had toured the property and acknowledged the concerns about its condition. They outlined multiple procedural pathways — zoning applications, redevelopment designation, or enforcement of existing ordinances — and repeatedly emphasized the need for public hearings and careful analysis before any action. Mayor Fields and other members told speakers the property owner has an independent obligation to secure and maintain the site; one committee member suggested painting over graffiti could address that particular problem in the short term.
No motion to designate the site as an area in need of redevelopment was taken at the meeting. Several committee members said they would consider the request and recommended that planning‑board study and additional public input determine the next steps. The committee also reminded residents that ordinances and enforcement options exist now to address nuisances while a longer review proceeds.
The committee did not adopt any redevelopment ordinance or take a formal vote on the Lord Sterling property at this meeting. Committee members signaled they would continue to review options and expected additional public hearings if the township moves forward with a planning‑board investigation or other formal steps.
