Residents urge pause and more clarity as township advances MOU on Anchoridge Point redevelopment

The Egg Harbor Township Committee heard hours of public opposition on a memorandum of understanding tied to redevelopment plans in the Anchoridge/Seaview Harbor area, with residents urging the committee to pause action and hold detailed briefings before negotiating with the developer.

At the start of public comment, committee representative Mark Friedman explained that the MOU is intended to carve three items — the bulkhead, parking along Auburn (O'Byrne) Drive and a possible signal on the Route 152 causeway — out of ordinary planning-board site-plan review and keep those topics with the township committee for negotiation with the developer. "These issues are strictly limited to demarcating those three issues from the other issues that are there," Friedman said, adding the planning board would handle the balance of site-plan matters.

Homeowners from Anchorage/Anchoridge Point and nearby neighborhoods responded with detailed objections. One resident raised an email he said showed a developer’s intent to extend the bulkhead beyond the developer’s property and warned that such an extension could affect riparian rights and existing docks. "This is huge," the resident said, arguing the MOU does not explicitly explain whether the bulkhead would be extended past current lines and that DEP records and past litigation should be considered.

Others focused on environmental and safety consequences: longtime residents said a vertical bulkhead may not stop storm surge and could harm Spartina wetlands and local wildlife, including places where turtles and birds nest. "The bulkhead will never stop the flooding," a neighbor said, warning that gravel or other changes could destroy the marsh habitat and neighborhood character.

Residents also said the MOU’s reference to "reestablishing parking" along O'Byrne Drive appears to permit new parking where none existed, which neighbors say would increase noise, traffic and night-time disturbance. Several speakers described a lack of direct engagement by the developer or planning staff with the neighborhood and asked for a meeting so residents could see engineering, DEP applications, and specific plans rather than reading emails and summaries.

Town officials responded that the MOU does not itself approve construction or transfers of property and that the planning board will review site plans when a formal application is filed. "All this does tonight is say these three issues are going to stay with us," the mayor said, explaining the governing body would be responsible for negotiating those items with developer representatives. Officials committed to convene a group meeting with residents, the developer and staff to walk through plans and engineering documents.

Several speakers requested a delay or removal of the three items from the MOU until residents could review and comment on concrete plans; the mayor offered to have township staff bring interested residents together for an informational session in advance of the planning board hearing. Residents were also directed to the April 29 planning-board meeting for formal testimony on site-plan applications and were advised how to submit material into the record.

The public comment period closed after more than an hour of testimony; the committee indicated it would assemble a stakeholder meeting and gave residents contact guidance for staff. No final decision on the MOU was recorded in the public session; the committee deferred detailed determinations pending additional briefings and the planning-board process.

What’s next: township staff said they will arrange follow-up meetings with residents and the developer and that any formal approvals tied to site plans will proceed through the planning board, with rights of appeal preserved for affected property owners.