TOMS RIVER – A quiet residential neighborhood in Toms River has continued as the unlikely battleground over a proposed 17-bed overnight homeless shelter. The plan, spearheaded by Christ Church of Toms River and managed by the Affordable Housing Alliance (AHA), has ignited passionate arguments from supporters and detractors, leading to lengthy and contentious hearings before the local zoning board.
Christ Church wants to add the shelter to its outreach program located on its property at 415 Washington Street in the R-150 zone.
The zoning board determines if a property can be used in a way that is not currently allowed, in this case a shelter in a residential zone. At the heart of the matter is whether a small-scale homeless shelter offers enough of an inherent benefit to allow it? Would the shelter be an auxiliary use of the church?
Many residents, unfamiliar with the quasi-judicial nature of the hearings, have appeared frustrated with the process. While eager to share their opinions and research, they are currently restricted to cross-examining witnesses based solely on their testimony.
The proposed shelter would be housed within a renovated and expanded two-and-a-half-story building on the church’s property. Notably, the Toms River Housing and Homeless Coalition currently uses the upper level of the structure as the Ocean County Housing Resource Center. A group of faith-based leaders, nonprofits, and government agencies work together to assist the unhoused, who regularly meet at the location.
The proposed shelter would be located in the basement of the parish center where an outreach program already functions to help the unhoused. (Photo by Stephanie Faughnan)
According to Randi Moore, Chief Executive Officer of AHA, her organization will manage the facility to provide overnight refuge for a maximum of 17 adults. Operational hours are strictly defined, from 5 p.m. to 7 a.m., with beds allocated by appointment only. Individuals visibly under the influence of drugs or alcohol will be denied entry, although legal restrictions prohibit on-site testing.
Security measures are a central component of the plan. All bags will be subject to search, and exterior doors will be locked from the outside to prevent unauthorized access. Background checks will be conducted, focusing on serious criminal offenses and potential safety risks. The facility will address situations involving individuals with mental illness, substance abuse, or volatile behavior through collaboration with law enforcement and crisis intervention services.
The church’s proximity to downtown Toms River and bus routes has been highlighted as a benefit for the unhoused.
“Inherently Beneficial” Use
A key challenge for the applicants is that homeless shelters are not permitted in any of Toms River’s residential zones. To proceed, Christ Church has applied for a use D1 variance, which requires them to demonstrate that the shelter meets both positive and negative criteria.
Christ Church is represented by attorney Harvey York, whose presentation in the application included expert witness testimony. Brian P. Murphy, a professional engineer, professional planner, and principal with FWH Associates, testified before the planning board on behalf of the church, arguing that the proposed shelter is an “inherently beneficial use” and aligns with the zone’s permitted uses.
Murphy outlined the permitted uses within the R-150 zone, which include single-family homes, schools, various community residences, and multi-family housing. He emphasized that the church, established in the late 1800s, predates existing zoning ordinances. Murphy also cited legal precedents in stating one of the reasons the shelter would be a proper use of the church property.
“It’s held that homeless shelters are an auxiliary use of the church,” testified Murphy. “Sheltering the homeless and caring for the poor has consistently been a church function carried out over the centuries.”
“It is amongst one of the basic mandates of the Judeo-Christian heritage throughout history that churches have carried out the Biblical mandate to aid the poor and the helpless,” Murphy continued. “To not permit the church to have the shelter, would be a violation of the fundamental tenets of the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibiting the free exercise of religion.”
Murphy argued that homeless shelters fall within the “inherently beneficial use category,” citing legal precedent and the pressing need for such facilities in Ocean County. The case law itself, however, refers to group homes and not homeless shelters.
A number of people have showed up regarding the proposal, including supporters and opponents. (Photo by Stephanie Faughnan)
Nevertheless, even if the proposed facility is deemed inherently beneficial, the applicants must also meet the negative criteria, proving that the shelter will not be a “substantial detriment to the public good” or “substantially impair the intent and purpose of the municipality’s master plan or its zoning ordinances.”
According to Murphy, the detriments associated with the application are not substantial. He stated that noise levels and traffic changes would be negligible.
“The only other impact that I see beyond the noise and traffic, which is associated with the project, could be an impact on the property values of adjacent homes,” Murphy added, with an overall conclusion that the benefits of the project outweigh any of its detriments.
Community Opposition
The proposal has drawn significant opposition from residents who fear the shelter will negatively impact their neighborhood. Additionally, Paul Williams, a Toms River resident who has experienced homelessness, has emerged as a surprisingly vocal critic of the proposal. Williams has videoed each of the meetings and hosted an informational session regarding the proposed application.
“I am opposed to our zoning being tinkered with for something that, while it might make some feel good and warm and financially benefit others,” said Williams. “It is certain to open a Pandora’s box for other similar applications and thereby undermine the point and purpose of zoning laws.”
“A mere 17 beds is not an inherently beneficial use to the community as it will not provide an adequate, effective, or meaningful solution to the very real problem of homelessness in our community,” added Williams.
Attorney Ronald Gasiorowski was retained by some of the objectors to the application and has presented expert witness testimony in opposition to it.
Gasiorowski has argued that the shelter does not meet the current zoning requirements for a residential neighborhood. “People are not going to be residing in this facility and only are able to use it overnight,” Gasiorowski said. “They cannot reside there, either temporarily or permanently.”
Peter Steck, PP, a professional planner representing the objectors, questioned the legal standing of the applicant, suggesting that the Affordable Housing Alliance, the operator, lacks a clear connection to the property owner, Christ Church.
Steck also challenged the notion that the shelter is an accessory use to the church, arguing that the AHA operates independently. “It is not governed by the church. It has different personnel. In other words, because it doesn’t have an intimate connection, it’s not incidental to the church, in my opinion,” said Steck.
The outreach center that began operation in 2023 should also not have been approved according to Steck, saying that it did not qualify as an accessory use by the church.
The Zoning Board of Adjustment is overseeing whether the overnight shelter would be allowed at Christ Church. (Photo by Stephanie Faughnan)
While acknowledging that a homeless shelter is an inherently beneficial use, Steck testified that wasn’t enough – that the negatives outweighed the positives and didn’t warrant approval for the application. He pointed out the different levels of activity that a homeless shelter would have as opposed to a single-family or group home.
“The location of this on the edge of the religious campus and very close to single-family homes does two things,” Steck said. “It suggests that this is not a great location, and it may lessen the public benefit that arises. Although it’s beneficial to have a homeless shelter, in my opinion, the Board should be cautious about addressing the negative criteria.”
Donald Moliver, Ph.D., CRE, MAI, CTA, a qualified valuation expert, sought to demonstrate potential property value losses residents might face if the shelter becomes operational. However, board members challenged his assessments. Moliver cited the former Ocean Harbor House on Windsor Avenue as an example, but when questioned about the facility’s closure, he defended his analysis by emphasizing its impact on market appeal within the neighborhood.
Homeless Crisis
Despite the vocal opposition, the proposal has garnered support from advocates who emphasize the urgent need for shelter in Ocean County. Nearly one quarter of the county’s unhoused population has been counted in Toms River. While one encampment by Winding River Park has been dismantled, many others still live in tents or in their cars. The “lucky” ones couch surf from home to home.
Reverand Susan Jones, pastor of the Holy Cross Lutheran Church in Toms River, testified on behalf of the Toms River Housing and Homeless Coalition. She explained the relationship of the group to the church and the overall goal to provide shelter space.
“The operation of the current program and Housing Center is in the parish house, which is the building we’re talking about,” shared Jones. “It’s a partnership between Christ Church, the Affordable Housing Alliance and the Toms River Housing and Homeless Coalition.”
Jones testified that the outreach center was previously operated in another location and was quite pleased when Christ Church offered use of their building. It allowed them to be closer to the people who the collective groups served.
“The ultimate goal of the coalition, which is a partnership of a lot of nonprofits and other organizations, was ultimately to see if we could figure out how to provide shelter space,” said Jones. “There is none in Ocean County.”
Jones painted a stark picture of the current reality, emphasizing the desperate need for emergency shelter. The system, she explained, was overwhelmed. “We’ve been shipping people all over the place. We’ve been putting people in motels. They’re temporary solutions, and the motel availability is drying up.”
She went on to describe the growing urgency that led to the shelter proposal. The lack of resources had become untenable, forcing them to seek alternative solutions. They realized they needed to find a way to create space and provide support for those in need. This realization sparked a collaborative effort, bringing together the church, AHA, and the coalition.
Hearings before the board began on September 12, 2024. The initial hearing was ultimately invalidated due to improper notice requirements, forcing a restart on November 18, 2024. Subsequent hearings on December 12, 2024, January 23, 2025, and most recently, March 13, 2025, have done little to quell the controversy. The board is scheduled to reconvene on April 10th, with no end in sight.
The post Fight Continues About Overnight Homeless Shelter appeared first on Jersey Shore Online.