R.B. zoners give approval
to 35-unit housing plan
Project’s design deviates significantly from borough’s master plan
By libby kesil
Staff Writer

There’s a big change on the way for a neighborhood near the train station.

In a 6-1 vote, the Red Bank Zoning Board of Adjustment approved variances granting a significant density increase to Building and Land Technology, 138 Bodman Place, for a development plan for lots at the corner of Monmouth and West streets. Board member Laurie Marks voted against granting the variances.

Building and Land Technology plans to build 30 residential condominiums and five townhouses on the roughly 1.2 acres that comprise the site. Two existing four-family homes and a car wash, trailer hitch and U-Haul facility, which was formerly a gas station, would be demolished to make way for the proposed buildings.

The developer has maintained that the project is a necessary step in redeveloping the area and is the type of smart growth that state officials have been calling for.

Approval required the granting of multiple variances, including "special reasons" D variances, because the project vastly exceeds the permitted density for development on the site. Such variances not only require applicants to present more evidence to support granting them, but require a minimum of five affirmative votes from the seven-member board.

Before the vote, Board Attorney Kevin Kennedy explained some of the reasons the board might have for rejecting the variance request.

Kennedy said that if the application were approved, the board would have to consider whether the project would improve the overall appearance of the area or would dominate, overpower and dwarf the other buildings.

The board would also have to consider whether there were other nonconforming buildings in the area and, if so, whether those buildings were as far from conforming as the project proposed by the application is.

Another issue to consider would be whether the approval of the application would enhance the neighborhood or detract from the area.

"Those are all the types of things we historically address in any D variance application," said Kennedy.

Board member James Erving said he had carefully read the Red Bank master plan and researched the state’s plan for a transit-friendly community and determined that the application "fits into the area."

"I am going to move it to be approved with all the caveats Mr. Whelan stated," said Erving. "This cannot possibly be a detriment at all, much less a substantial detriment. I don’t see how a building with units [selling for] at least $350,000 could be a detriment to an area where homes are $100,000-$150,000."

Whelan’s caveats were to remind the board that it was voting on density only.

Board member Lauren Nicosia agreed.

"I second that," she said.

Site plan approval and bulk variances as well as necessary design waivers will be sought at a later date.

Area residents objecting to the plan say the buildings are too imposing and grandiose and will not conform to the neighborhood or to the borough’s ordinances and master plan.

According to the applicant’s attorney, Mark Aikins of the Tinton Falls law firm Carton, Arvanitis, McGreevy, Argeris, Zager & Aikins LLC, the site spans two different zoning areas.

In one zoning area, known as a business/residential-1 (BR-1) zone, 14 units per acre are permitted; the applicant’s plan calls for a density of 27.2 units per acre in the area where this zoning law applies, Aikins said.

In the other zoning area that is involved with the plan, a BR-2 zone, 10 units per acre are allowed. In the section of the plan located in the BR-2 zone, the plan calls for a density of 16 units per acre, Aikins said.

When contacted later, Kennedy used different figures in discussing the application. He said the density in the BR-1 zone was 33 units per acre and in the BR-2 zone the density was 15 units per acre.

Of the area involved in the applicant’s plan, there are 39,250 square feet in the BR-1 zone and 13,750 square feet in the BR-2 zone, Aikins said.

Also, both lots are under the minimum size for a developable lot in each zone.

Testimony from the applicant’s experts in support of the proposal and questions and comments from the public were closed at the Zoning Board’s Jan. 16 meeting.

Andrew Janiw, a professional planner, had told the board the proposed construction would blend in with the character of the neighborhood and that the project is an example of smart growth. He also stated that, according to the master plan, the goals of the borough were to repopulate in the area of the train station by 320 dwelling units, and the project was providing a portion of that.

Michael Reeps of Oakland Street, whose property backs up to the proposed development site, said that consistency with existing neighborhoods is what the borough’s master plan mandates, and he could not see how the development would be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood.

After the vote, Reeps said that the board had erred in its decision when it decided to bifurcate the application in the first place.

"They said they were just here to hear about the density and not the site plan. They could not hear the density without mentioning the site plans," said Reeps. "I think they did a disservice to the people of this neighborhood. If they had heard it as one, that would have been the appropriate way to do it."

Gerald Haggerty of Oakland Street, who had commented during the public hearing portion that the proposed buildings were going to be beautiful but just too high, echoed Reeps’ sentiments.

"They did a great disservice to the neighborhood." said Haggerty.