Lord Stirling Redevelopment Review Draws Large Public Response In Basking Ridge

BASKING RIDGE, NJ — The Bernards Township Planning Board began its public hearings to review whether or not to deem the former Lord Stirling School property as an area in need of redevelopment.

On Tuesday night, Bernards Township Planning Consultant Allison Fahey told the board that one of two properties in a redevelopment study area should be designated as an area in need of redevelopment, while the second should not.

Fahey presented her preliminary investigation report for block 3101, lots 2 and 3, also known as 99 Lord Stirling Road and 25 Sherwood Drive.

Fahey said the law requires a study area to satisfy only one of eight statutory criteria to qualify.

She also outlined the process, telling the board it was at the public hearing stage and that the board’s role was to decide its recommendation to the Township Committee.

The Township Committee authorized the investigation on Nov. 11, 2025, the report was published Sept. 30, and it went on public file Oct. 1.

The study covers about 11.94 acres near the Somerset County Environmental Education Center, along North Lord Stirling Road and Sherwood Drive near the Long Hill Township border.

Fahey said lot 2, the 10.8-acre former Lord Stirling School property, contains the main school building, a former kitchen building, a barn adapted for a gymnasium, an inground pool, climbing structures and sheds.

Lot 3, she said, is a 1.14-acre residential parcel with a single-family dwelling and a shed.

"The findings of the report state that three does not meet any of the criteria and that lot two meets criteria A, B, and D," Fahey told the board.

Fahey described lot 2 as vacant since 2020 and said conditions she observed during site visits in March 2026 and August 2026 included cracked pavement, overgrowth and deteriorated structures.

"The buildings on the lot are clearly dilapidated and unsafe for human use and occupancy," she said.

She also said there was "evidence of vandalism and criminal mischief according to the police records."

By contrast, Fahey said lot 3 did not meet the legal threshold based on the record before the board.

"Based on the information that’s available, lot three exhibits several observed physical conditions and suspected violations," she said, but "they don’t present record that would rise to the level of meeting those thresholds."

Board attorney Jonathan Drill told members they were not bound by Fahey’s report and could recommend designation of both lots, one lot, or neither, so long as the action was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

If the board recommends designation, the Township Committee would then decide whether to proceed and could later authorize preparation of a redevelopment plan, which Drill said would require a public hearing because it would be an ordinance.

Public Questions

During the meeting, residents pressed Fahy with questions about the former Lord Stirling School property.

Questions from residents focused on criteria involving commercial use, vacancy, disrepair and whether conditions at the site create a community impact.

One resident, Joanne Kleinley of Riverside Drive, asked about the property’s tax status through 2020 and whether nonprofit schools were included when the definition of commercial use was expanded in 2019.

In response to questioning, the planner said she had reviewed another private school application in the township and found "the private school was deemed commercial."

Residents also asked about the planner’s description of physical conditions at the site, including the driveway, parking area and structural concerns inside the main building.

Reading from her report, Fahey said the building had "significant structural issues including cracks and holes in the foundation, broken gutters and leaders, damaged doors and windows, deteriorating or missing siding, missing flooring, exposed wiring, as well as graffiti. rotten window frames, water damage both inside and outside, holes in ceilings and walls."

Police activity at the property drew repeated questions from the public.

Fahey read from a Sept. 1, 2025 report stating that, after the owner reported graffiti and trespassing, "Since the incident was reported, there have been 68 property checks."

She said she had followed up because the number seemed high and said, "I emailed him back and I said, 'This says 68. Is that actually just six or eight?' And he said it is actually 68."

Michael Silbert, representing Lord Stirling Property LLC, also questioned Fahey.

He asked whether the site could still qualify if one redevelopment criterion were met, Fahey said, "it can simply just meet two or even just one."

After public questioning ended, the board decided not to begin the next witness that night.

The hearing is set to continue on Dec. 8 at 7:30 p.m. in the Warren Craft Meeting Room at the Bernards Township Municipal Building, One Collyer Lane, Bernards Township.

Previous Reporting:

• Residents Split Over Future Of Lord Stirling Property In Bernards Township
• Neighbors Urge Maintenance, Oppose Redevelopment Of Lord Stirling Property
• Neighbors Oppose Plan For Former Lord Stirling School In Basking Ridge

• NJ Man's Vision For Special Needs Housing At A Stand Still In Basking Ridge

• Abandoned, Vacant 'Eye Sore' Lord Stirling Property Seeks Bernards Township Help
• Investigation Of Vacant Lord Stirling Property Moves Forward In Bernards Township

Have a news tip? Email alexis.tarrazi@patch.com.