Bank Street’s Brian Donohue videotaped a recent encounter with a Chapin Avenue condo owner over public access to the Navesink River and posted it on YouTube.
On the agenda for tonight’s Red Bank zoning board meeting are the terms and conditions that the proposed builder of the 11-unit RW @ River’s Edge condo project must agree to and fulfill before it can be built.
Among them: public access to the Navesink River. The project spans three residential properties that sit on a bluff above the river at the western ends of Bank Street and Drs. James Parker Boulevard.
Brian Donohue, a resident of Bank Street, challenged the board to make sure that the public is allowed to both see and access the river after the homes are built. And he shot the above video to examine the question of whether similar guarantees offered when condos were built nearby on Chapin Avenue earlier this decade were met.
A view of the river from Bank Street.
From a recent Donohue email to redbankgreen:
fyi: at the zoning meeting last month, I raised the issue of waterfront access, saying I’d be in favor of those condos if they assure public access. But the developer’s previous two projects (chapin ave and Locust) have been disasters in this area.
I showed the board this video. After they watched it, they were pretty vociferous that there needs to be protections in the plan (signs, markers, etc)
The zoning board meets at 6:30 in the council chambers at Borough Hall, 90 Monmouth Street.
Thats great. We dont need anymore condos in Red Bank. Did anyone happen to see the construction at the armory. They made "minor roof alterations" and added an additional story. Minor alteration
Bravo Brian, Bravo.
classic. RB does have a “development plan” in the works for the area over by the town recycling property (and I think it is a “green acres” plan), how would these bank street condos fit into that overall plan?
Very well done. Also, the lady from the Association handled an awkward situation very well.
The video gets just a little dicey about 4 minutes in when Brian starts to push the point just a little too far. It's obvious that the current homeowners as well as Brian himself don't personally know the details or exact legal status of any public access in that area. The homeowners should not be humiliated for that. They don't seem to know any more or less about their real estate than anyone does.
On the other hand, that's kind of the point:
Brian has provided a fantastic lesson in the consequences of a Boro government being "flexible" and "responsive" to developers in the interest of "economic development".
We have a situation in our neighborhood where several years ago a nonprofit use on the next street was allowed to tear down a house on our street, cut the curb, and build a parking lot exiting out onto our street. The resulting traffic, parking, lighting, etc. is an obnoxious nuisance.
The property owners in qeustion were able to get away with all this by sending an influential local attorney around to the affected neighbors to get their consent. He made all kinds of promises about how the exit would only be used on a limited basis and how the neighbors' kids would be able to play basketball in the parking lot and in a new playground built next to it.
Two generations later the people running the place now have no knowledge of the promises made to the neighborhood. Indeed, few of the neighbors themselves have even heard of the deal made with their predecessors. The playground has a sign saying 'members only' and the exit is the only exit off the property, which has all kinds of public activities going on morning through night.
The promises made were never set in as deed restrictions. The Boro passed no ordinance. It is unknown whether they were even recorded in the Boro's meeting minutes. Indeed, over much of the Boro's recent years of intense development, the Boro Council kept no records at all.
The result is abuse, conflict and the actual conversion of property rights without choice or compensation.
The people of Red Bank owe Brian a hearty thanks for catching one of these slow motion train wrecks in action.
@big rebel:
I think you're right. I think the town bought the land immediately south of this tract with Green Acres funds. The next tract south of that is the town-owned recycling land. And the tract just north of the proposed condo site is the primary school - also publicly owned. That is part of the reason I'm so concerned over access on the Bank Street tract. It's the one non-publicly owned link in what could one day be a linear area of public access across nearly the entire west side riverfront. That sounds pie in the sky, but it's very doable - but only if access to this link in the chain is protected.
Did that nice lady pull a cell phone out of her bra? Very resourceful!
Good job Brian - wish I would have seen this yesterday - did you attend the meeting last night - how'd it go?