Developer to appeal Bank Street denial
Board denies appl. to raze 3 houses, build 15 townhomes
BY LAYLI WHYTE
Staff Writer

The developer seeking to build 15 townhouses on Bank Street, on the west side of Red Bank, will appeal the borough Planning Board's decision to deny the application, according to the attorney for RW@Rivers Edge.

Kevin Coakley said Tuesday that he will appeal the board's decision made at its Monday meeting on behalf of his client, based on the claim that the board's decision was "arbitrary and unreasonable."

The RW@ Rivers Edge proposal called for three buildings of 15 townhouse units to be built on 14 lots at the western end of Bank Street and Dr. James Parker Blvd. The principal in RW@ Rivers edge is developer George Whelan.

The plan would have required the demolition of three single-family homes, and the removal of several trees that stand between existing houses and the Navesink River.

"The zoning for this area allows for this type of development," Coakley said. "The Planning Board members should read the zoning ordinance. They've obviously chosen not to apply their own zoning ordinance."

According to Coakley, "The project, as presented, conformed almost totally with the zoning ordinance."

The applicant sought approval of two variances and several design waivers from the board to permit the new construction.

John Mallon, planner for the project, told the Planning Board Monday that the variances should be granted because of the hardship caused by the Navesink River, which runs along the west side of the property.

"We are requesting a variance because two units don't have access to a public street," said Mallon, of the engineering firm Ernst, Ernst, Lissenden, Toms River.

Mallon explained that the reason two of the western most units would not have access to an improved street, and the occupants would have to cross the property of one or two other units, was because of the irregular shape of the property due to the river cutting diagonally across the property.

"The river creates an odd shape on Bank Street and Drs. James Parker Blvd.," he said. "Along the river, the [New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection] classified the area behind the property as exceptional wetlands, and required a 75-foot buffer. Because of that buffer, we were not allowed to extend the road."

Borough Engineer Richard Kosenski said that if two of the units were eliminated from the plan, the hardship variance would not be needed because the driveways for those units would not cross over the property of adjacent units.

"The law says that if the lot size is unusual, there could be a hardship," Kosenski said, "but every lot in the RD Zone suffers from the same problems of steep slopes, wetlands, coastal bluffs. There's probably only one lot in the RD Zone that doesn't."

Board attorney Michael Leckstein said that the board was under no obligation to approve the application.

"I can defend your actions either way," Leckstein told the board at Monday's meeting. "The property is zoned for a more dense use, the issue really is whether this is grounds for a hardship variance. If they built 11 or 12 units, could they eliminate the need for that variance? If so, the hardship is self-created."

Coakley said that the appeal would be filed with the Superior Court Law Division in Freehold, but cannot be filed until after the board passes a resolution of denial.

The second variance, according to Coakley, was a technical variance because 7,500 square feet of the property to be developed is in the RB-1 zone, while the remaining 87,500 square-feet is in the RD zone.

The borough zoning ordinance calls for a minimum of 20,000 square feet for attached family homes, and since the lot in the RB-1 Zone is less than that, a variance is needed, despite the fact that the entire project property is 95,000 square feet, said Coakley.

Although the second variance did not meet with opposition from the board or the public, several Bank Street residents attended Monday's meeting to voice opposition to the size of the project.

Brian Donohue, Bank Street, said that although he thought the project was too large for the site, he would like to see the property developed.

"I'm not opposed to development," he said, "or even a large increase of the number of homes that are there now. I want more neighbors, but I want more of what we have now. If they wanted to double the number of homes, that would be fine. If they wanted to triple the number of homes, that would be fine, but this is a 500 percent increase in the number of homes. They want to go from three to 15."

Donohue and several other residents of Bank Street, including his wife, Diana Archila Donohue, William Poku and Darlene Grzegorski, have attended nearly every other meeting at which the board heard testimony on the application. The first hearing took place last January.

Donohue also pointed out that despite a claim by the applicant that tearing down the existing vacant homes would benefit the community, he did not believe there was testimony that supported that contention.

"Two of the three houses were inhabited until the applicant bought them and has left them vacant," he said. "Is mitigating a negative condition that you created a positive development?"

Joseph Dignan, Bank Street, said that he was in favor of the application, because the density the proposal would have brought would be permitted by the borough's ordinance.

"In my opinion," he said, "this is acceptable and it would be an overall benefit. I'm a supporter of this project."

According to Coakley, Gary Watson, acting director of the Public Works Department for the borough, had requested that instead of having the owners of the townhouses each put out separate garbage cans on garbage collection days, that a Dumpster be placed on the north side of the development for people living on both sides of Bank Street. The residents of the development on Drs. James Parker Blvd. would be able to use regular garbage cans.

Board member Dr. Guy Maratta said that he was uncomfortable with that situation.

"People dragging their garbage 150 feet in icy situations," he said, "doesn't make me feel good about the project."

Maratta made a motion to deny the application, and that motion was seconded by board member Councilwoman Sharon Lee.

There were two votes in favor of approving the application, with four votes to deny approval.

"Although a member of my own staff," said Planning Board member Stanley Sickels, who is borough administrator and the borough's code enforcement officer, "recommended a Dumpster. I don't think a Dumpster would be sympathetic to the neighborhood."

Sickels said that although he respects the work Whelan has done in the borough in the past, he did not believe this development was a good fit for the neighborhood.

"Our population has grown," he said, "and land is becoming scarce, but I think our task is to make it acceptable. Fifteen units is not acceptable. I don't think 14 units is acceptable."

Sickels and Maratta were the only board members to voice the reasons why they voted to deny the application.