Navesink House seeks
accord on expansion
Operators of facility
hope to alleviate
neighbors’ objections

RED BANK — Talks between representatives of the Navesink House and Riverview Towers over the senior facility’s proposed addition have reached a stalemate, both sides conceded recently.

The Navesink House, 40 Riverside Avenue, and Riverview Towers, a cooperative apartment complex at 26 Riverside Ave., have been discussing their differences since April, according to Charles Peters, president of the Navesink House.

Both sides were hoping to reach some accord concerning the Navesink House plan to build an addition, which the cooperative apartment complex has been opposing.

According to John Austin, president of the Riverview Towers co-op board, those hopes seemed to have been dashed at a meeting between the two boards, held recently at the Navesink House.

The Navesink House had previously shown members of the Riverview Towers board a copy of a revised plan for the addition.

But at the most recent meeting, Austin maintained, the plans shown to Riverview Towers people were now different from what they had been shown.

"They have a plan B, I guess," Austin said with a shrug of his shoulders.

The first set of revised plans shown to Riverview Towers presented a somewhat scaled-back model from what was first presented, and eventually denied, by the borough’s Zoning Board of Adjustment.

This modified plan, according to Austin, included an additional 35-foot setback from the river’s shoreline in the rear of the building.

In addition, the plans also had a larger buffer between the two structures.

But when the co-op reviewed the latest set of plans, the rear setback had shrunk to 25 feet, Austin said.

"The plans in front of us weren’t the ones we thought," he said.

Austin said that although 10 feet may not seem like a large amount of space, "it affects views heretofore unaffected."

Also, considering the size of the addition, it amounts to roughly 1 foot per additional apartment unit, he added.

"A foot per unit to accommodate the views isn’t too much to ask," Austin said.

There were other sticking points, Austin acknowledged.

Those points included the co-op’s request for a corner of the property where the addition would be built to store trash; and the leasing of 25 parking spaces from the addition’s garage area.

"Believe you me, we weren’t asking for the world," Austin said.

Those proposals were met with coolness on the part of the senior facility.

Peters said his board is not inclined to want to concede on providing the trash area.

"It would cut off the public access to the river and takes away from the aesthetics of the site," Peters explained.

Public access to the Navesink River is required of waterfront development by borough ordinance.

"We found that problematic," he said.

Peters said the new plans may be somewhat different, but only marginally, and he still sees hope for reaching a compromise and to continue discussions in the not-too-distant future.

"We’re not going to let this get cold," he said. "We’re going to get back to them to have serious discussions as soon as possible."

But, Peters admitted, there are no definite plans at this time to continue discussions. That decision, he said, will have to be made by the facility’s Long-Range Planning Committee.

Peters also said the Riverview Towers representatives are also concerned about the new assembly room for the addition, which would be a story taller than Riverview Towers’ promenade deck, and the co-op board is under the impression it would be the same height.

Another issue of concern to Riverview Towers is the Navesink House’s contract to purchase the Salvation Army property on the southern side of the cooperative apartment complex.

Peters said the senior facility does indeed have plans to buy that property when the Salvation Army has raised enough funding to move to its new location on Newman Springs Road. Peters said that how that parcel of land will ultimately be used has not been determined and that whatever is decided, the decision will involve someone other than him.

Peters plans to retire in February, so whatever use is made of the property, it will come under the watch of a future president.

"We haven’t even had any real discussion [about the Salvation Army property]," Peters said. "Who knows what the future will bring?"

"Why do we as a board, who spend money, have difficulty believing they don’t have plans for the Salvation Army property?" asked Austin.

Austin said he thinks the Navesink House is biding its time until the Superior Court renders its opinion on the appeal of the Zoning Board’s decision, which is expected in October.

"If they win the appeal, we’re dead in the water," Austin. "But that’s a big if."

Should the senior facility appeal be denied, and should it submit the most current of plans to the Zoning Board, Austin said, Riverview Towers will once again oppose the application.

But, Austin added, he would like to reach some compromise for, among other reasons, the most pragmatic reason of all: the cost.

"I guess what we want is to look at our budget and not see lawyer fees in parentheses as an over-budget item," he said.

Despite that, Austin said he and the other residents at Riverview Towers will remain steadfast.

"We’d like to bring down our costs and work with our neighbor, but we’re not going to capitulate," he added.