Sketches for the proposed Community YMCA expansion, which the zoning board rejected Thursday night. (Click to enlarge. Photo by Dustin Racioppi)
By DUSTIN RACIOPPI
Though it got more votes in favor than against, a proposal to nearly double the size of the Community YMCA facility on Maple Avenue in Red Bank isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
After months of back-and-forth over design plans and the Y’s acceding to some concerns of the borough zoning board — to the degree that every board member praised its efforts — the plan failed to win the votes it needed to move forward.
The board voted 4-3 in favor of the plan, but because a use variance was at issue, the YMCA needed a supermajority of five or more votes, said board attorney Marc Leckstein.
Board chairwoman Lauren Nicosia had recused herself over a conflict of interest and Chris Ferrigine was absent.
A crowd sat through three hours of discussion and testimony that focused on tree preservation, solar panels and parking. (Click to enlarge)
Hearings on the proposal went on for months, with the Y’s architects starting over nearly from scratch after board members complained the initial building concept looked too “futuristic,” with large glass windows. It didn’t fit in with Maple Avenue’s existing homes and businesses, they said.
The redesign also moved an entire section of the building to accommodate the request of the Shade Tree Commission to save a few trees and created more parking, including handicapped and “courtesy” spaces.
The YMCA had commissioned traffic and parking studies, and their plans brought forward Thursday conformed to all the recommendations of those experts, said lawyer Marty McGann, who represents the YMCA. Every potetntial condition of approval voiced by board members was greeted with the same answer by McGann: “We will do that. We are not adverse to that.”
The plan appeared to have solid support from an audience that sat through more than three hours of testimony and comments.
Samuel Rennard, three of whose four daughters learned to swim at the Y, got rousing applause when he said to the board, “I don’t care if you knock down every single tree. I don’t care if you take away all the parking spaces,” he said. “It doesn’t matter. We need to take an ounce of common sense and think about this. It helps the community.”
Still, there were those who said the expansion was bad for Red Bank, and more specifically, bad for Maple Avenue.
Joe Buzzanco, a dentist whose office is near the Y, said he’s a member and supporter, but opposed the expansion, mostly for traffic reasons.
“Maple Avenue is a catastrophe,” he said. “It’s the main corridor into Red Bank. This is surely going to make it significantly worse.”
In the end, though, it still came down to what the building looked like relative to its neighbors.
Vice Chairman Tom Williams and first alternate Rosemary Minear voted against the plan. Williams said the building design was a “stumbling block” for him. A borough ordinance saying that a business or home must essentially blend in, or not interrupt, the existing area, haunted him, he said.
“This is something I kept referring to during the application and for me, it was never addressed,” he said. “I came here tonight with an open mind and now comes time to make the decision. While we’re all going to have to live with it, and I am still stuck on this, I’m not against an expansion, but it’s an inappropriate expansion.”
After the decision, McGann was the closest thing to a loss for words as a lawyer can be. He pondered, walked around a bit, and as reporters circled him awaiting some comment, said, “I don’t know how to characterize it yet. I’m disappointed. I thought the applicant addressed every concern that the board had.”
Williams said the proposal can come back in two ways. The YMCA can appeal the decision, citing capricious action from the board, to state Superior Court in Freehold, which could force the board to re-hear the matter. Or the YMCA can bring in a new plan, completely different plan.
The vote was 4 to 3, not 4 to 2 as stated in the article. Please correct.
My focus is traffic as I reside in the area. The new southern access drive’s centerline is less than 100′ from the centerline of Irving Place….very close. Folks using Irving Place as a cut thru to and from the train station and points north of Rt. 35 has made the intersection of Irving Place and Rt. 35 an accident waiting to happen. Now add a new access drive with conflicting turning movements less than 100′ away and you add to the problem.
For the NJDOT not to have an issue with the new access is unreal….have they truly looked at the conditions?
The only movement that should be allowed form the new southern drive is right out period.
As for the design….it is ugly and doesn’t fit but a rose by any other name.
Let Them Build!!
It’s really perplexing to see the decisions made on these types of issues. In my neighborhood, we have one property (corner of Leighton and Bank) where the property owner literally plopped a prefab house in the front yard of an existing house - truly astonishing - and another house on River Street where virtually an entire new house was built on the back of an existing one. I walk by these every day and scratch my head at how lax our town boards must be. And then I see decisions like this, a project that seems like a huge boon for the community, go down in flames. Maybe I’m missing something here. But wow, it really makes you scratch your head.
I attended most of this hearing last night. As a resident of Red Bank who lives on Waverly Place, I really had mixed emotions walking in the door and I have mixed emotions still.
The mission of the YMCA and the value that it adds to our larger community is commendable. The actual impact on the local neighborhood is a bit unpleasant. I was happy to hear that YMCA was willing to work with the neighborhood to help solve many of the issues. However, the engineer did say that a traffic study predicted even more crossings between Broad & Maple. Already the situation is a bit dangerous, and I told the board that I thought this would make it even more dangerous. I have walked into the YMCA parking lot on more than one occasion to kindly asked people to slow it down as they proceed down Waverly. Many children live on our street.
No matter what decision was rendered by the Zoning Board, I was determined to only focus on the positives of this decision. So while I am sorry for those who would have reaped the benefits of this proposed endeavor (including my wife who uses the Y on an a la carte basis), I am glad that our street will not be burdened with more dangerous traffic.
This is meant to be constructive: I think that if the YMCA has the opportunity to give this another try in the future, they should be more thoughtful when it comes to establishing partnerships with the entities that service the neighborhood. To hear that any drain on the electrical output and water pressure resulting from a bigger Y were the concern of the utilities, or that any additional people speeding down Waverly is a concern for the police, or that the traffic issues on Maple needed to be addressed with the NJDOT, were not helpful in building neighborhood support. I am not suggesting that these were the reasons that they were shot down. I am only saying that if they had been in front of these issues, it might have helped.
Brian:
Just curious.
Do you know for certain that the houses you saw are in violation of the code?
Or is it just you figure if they’re not violating the code, there’s something worng with the code?
If it’s clear cut that they’re in compliance with the code they have no legal grounds to approve it.
oops! “approve” should have been “reject”
“A borough ordinance saying that a business or home must essentially blend in, or not interrupt, the existing area.”
I hope that doesn’t mean they have to build a faux medieval castle in order to blend in with the only other large building in the neighborhood.
The whole meeting was mind blowing!!! The town lawyer was offensive towards the citizens,imagine a lawyer calling someone redundant??The board is worried about a few trees???Hello!! untold acres of rainforest are clear cut daily!!!Thanks zoning board for saving the earth.After sitting through this sham you can see why politicians , lawyers ,and political hacks are so loved.The Y had a 4-2 majority(THANKS to the 4) and yet was still turned down.INCREDIBLE.
Me,
What’s incredible about their rejection?
Apparently the rule is they needed 5 votes for approval.
The Board was required to turn it down.
Kevin
I didn’t look into the cases I mentioned because I wasn’t notified before the hearing as I’m outside the 200 foot zone or whatever distance it is. The first example is literally a house plopped into what was the front yard of another house. I have covered scores of zoning issues and been to hundreds of hearings and am aware of how the laws work. If the codes allow building a new house in your front yard, there’s something wrong with the code.
I didn’t want to get hung up on those examples. They are just two small pieces of a larger picture that often seems to have little rhyme or reason.
Dan,
Hee! I agree - some of what’s there blends about as well as Joe Pesci in “My Cousin Vinny.” But it all looks okay, somehow. There’s only so much the Y can do to blend anyway, and given where it’s located I think the design is fine.
Honestly, the traffic is a much greater worry for me. I live on Leroy, near Maple, and would love to see the Y expand - willing to live through the noise of construction and everything - if they can come up with a better traffic plan. It’s already challenging to pull out onto Maple on weekends, with cars parked on Maple blocking visibility, plus the increased pedestrian traffic. I just don’t see how the proposed traffic plan would prevent this from worsening.
“Me” clearly doesn’t get it.
I was at the hearing as well and the people testifying were completely redundant. How many people did we have to hear stand up there and say: “The Y is great. My kids swim there.” Kudos to the Board for finally cutting it off. It was getting tiring.
It was more than clear to my wife and I that no one in the room was denying the Y is a good thing. Even the Doctor who spoke against the application made it clear he loves the Y and apparently he is actually a member.
As the Doctor said, the only issue was whether this particular expansion was too much. In my opinion, it was! I’m glad the Board had the courage to stand up for what is right rather than giving into the mob mentality that was attempting to overtake the room with their constant applauding. SERIOUSLY, WHO DOES THAT?
As Mr. Donohue just wrote, apparently the rule is 5 votes were needed. The Y only got 4 out of 7 so they lost. As the Chairman indicated, the Y can now come back with a new plan. And they should come back, with a new plan that will work for all of Red Bank, not just for the clapping few.
Again, my hat is off to the Board for a job well done.
As if the Y blends now? For us residents in the surrounding area, the 900 pound gorilla remains the radically increased traffic flows in and around this already hazardous location. The real travesty in all of this is that the 4 board members approving this white elephant apparently fell for that mockery of a traffic study presented – it did not address any of our concerns, it did not provide even a hint of an honest workable solution, and thus the credibility/validity of the traffic study should have been called into question. I applaud the dissenters and do look forward to having the Y comeback with a more reasonable application. (zoo puns intended).
Everyone making negative comments regarding the Y should realize we are only after a healthy life style,ease the health care burden in this country and NOT trying inconvenience anyone.All the anti-Y folks fail to understand that Red Bank is a DESTINATION.The Count Basie,Two River Theatre,all the restaurants,urban outfitters etc. all cause traffic tie ups and numerous other “problems” that we all have to work with.I would urge all the anti - Y people to remember the good far out weighs the bad.
Me:
I just reread the comments above, and I don’t see a single negative comment about the YMCA.
Everyone on here, and everyone who was present at the meeting, did nothing but praise the YMCA. We all love the YMCA and fully recognize the good it does for Red Bank.
We also all recognize that the YMCA needs the ability to expand in order to survive.
All we are questioning is the size of that needed expansion. As I wrote earlier, in my opinion (and apparently in the opinion of the Board’s minority as well) this particular expansion was just too large.
The YMCA should redesign its plans and come back to the Board with an expansion that will work for all of Red Bank. We are just asking for a better YMCA that will serve everyone’s interests. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Again, I congratulate the Board for a job well done. Its members and professionals were extremely curtious and patient throughout the entire application which, while I wasn’t at every meeting, took MONTHS to complete.
I look forward to attending the anticipated new YMCA application where I can join in praising the design instead of being concerned about its effects on my neighborhood.
I believe the YMCAs proposed expansion has been well conceived and sensitive to its neighbors inquires.
It’s evident that they have worked in accordance with the NJDOT so any issues with traffic should be bought to their attention.
You:
I attended the 2/4 meeting and I found redundancy in the boards prolonged dialogue regarding trees and traffic. They spoke of these issues for 2 1/2 hours. When finally the public was invited to speak we heard from 8- 10 folks. I’d say the contents of which (timewise) was spent half on traffic issues & half on personal reflections of the Y’s programming, etc.
Also, the Zoning Board’s attorney was nothing short of discourteous and impatient with the public. He cut short their comments (after maybe 25 min.) saying something to the effect…”how many swim lessons do we need to hear about…”
One redundancy that stood out to me was in the Y’s attorney, Marty McGann words of ” We will do that” and “We are not adverse to that” in regard to trees, solar use and.crosswalk signage. It is clear to me that the Y is being extremely responsive and willing to compromise.
Through this all I couldn’t help but think of other building and expansion projects that Red Bank has approved of in the last couple of years and wonder if the same scrutiny was applied to them: RB Catholic, The Light House Ice Stand (corner of Bridge and Shrewsbury - try parking and exiting there safely), Bueno Sera and the new parking garage at the Galleria.
I look forward to perhaps an appeal by the YMCA in questioning the zoning board’s decision. Maybe the zoning board needs to inventory their past decisions
and their effects on neighborhoods and residents. Then apply the same standards to the Y’s project.
Sue
Oops…inquiries
Sue
I’m a member who thinks the current facility is great.
I don’t get why they think they need to expand.
While expansion can help orgs, it can also kill them.
And the Y’s last 2 attempted expansions were a failure.
The first was the skate park which was never started after they spent a lot of money for the study which recommended they build it.
The 2nd was the outdoor courts they built most recently. They are so underutilized I’d be suprised if the Y considers them a success.
I suggest the Y reconsider whether the expansion is in their best financial interest.
Almost doubling their size will kill them if it doesn’t generate the extra Revs they’ll need to pay for the expansion.
The YMCA needs to expand. They started with around 5,000 members and now with almost 11,000 house them in the same facility. It is obvious an expansion is needed.
They serve children, families, seniors & everyone inbetween. Not JUST with swim lessons either. The Y’s goal is to serve the community and promote health & wellness to all. They do just that!
I am excited to see where they go next, and hope the best in any expansion. The more they grow- the more people the can serve and the more lives they can change.
Me:
Apparently you have issues with redudancy unless it is your own redudancy.
I find it very interesting that the redudant board member you are complaining about, the one who went on and on about the trees and the solar power, was one of the Board members who actually voted for the application.
Additionally, all of the other projects you and others are complaining about, other than the RBC project, were all approved by the Planning Board and not the Zoning Board, so you are barking up the wrong tree in your complaints.
I personally think the Planning Board is completely out of control with the insane developments they have approved. The constant Bueno Sera expansions without parking have been a joke, the Galeria Parking Garage should have never been allowed as it will definitely be an eyesore, the monstrosity that replaced Dorn’s is a disgrace, and they should have NEVER allowed anyone to destroy the Union House. Its replacement has been sitting there for years now and they still have no tenants.
AGAIN - THESE WERE ALL PLANNING BOARD, NOT ZONING BOARD APPROVALS.
I wish the Planning Board had half the restraint shown by the Zoning Board in their actions. I again applaud the Zoning Board, and its attorney who for some reason you keep picking on even though he clearly did his job and kept the proceedings moving, for their professionalism throughout this process.
If anyone was discourtious during the application it was the public who kept clapping and making fools of themselves every time someone got up and said: “My kid swims at the Y. The Y is great!”
As I said earlier, we all love the YMCA. No one has ever said otherwise. For what its worth, my kids learned to swim at the YMCA also. Want to trash me now?
We are all entitled to our opinions Sue, apparently you just don’t want to accept someone else’s as being valid if they don’t agree with you. How sad!
I again implore the YMCA to return to the Zoning Board with a plan that makes sense, not a plan that hurts its neighbors. Believe it or not, unlike the Board of Trustees of the YMCA, we actually live in Red Bank and we matter to.
Kevin,
You left out two other recent expansions: 51 Monmouth St. and 144 Drs. James Parker Blvd. Both are now closed. I think they’ve dumped the Drs. James Parker building but 51 Monmouth is in limbo.
I’d like to see a pool with open lap time for teens, another gym, and a bigger room for the weight machines. But I don’t think those things are necessary for survival.
This decision shows an utter lack of common sense. Letting the possibility that there may be extra cars on a street stop a major community investment is ridiculous. Traffic patterns change all the time for various reasons and people adjust - it’s ridiculous to elevate traffic levels to the status of an amenity that needs to be preserved. For all the good the Y does - especially for underserved populations - this treatment is surprising. Or maybe not - once again the “haves” are win out over the “have-nots.” If the goal is community improvement, the board is way off course.
WHy is this community investment? I’d love to see more things for our kids too, but for many of us, no matter how big teh Y is, it won’t matter to out families because it is unaffordable. 51 Monmouth is for sale and the building on Drs. Parker is being used to do what the Y couldn’t do in that location - serve our kids, now as a borough owned community center operated by the Boys & Girls Club. I’d ask to see the data on the Y in terms of % of members from Red Bank before I decided how much of a community service it offers to the folks here in town.
During the hearing the President of the Y testified only 17% of the Y’s members are from Red Bank.
oops,
The town kicked the Y out of the space where the Boys & Girls Club is now, hoping to sell it. I think the Y made a proposal to operate programs out of that location, but the town liked the B&G Club proposal better.
Katherine,
Thanks for the info on the increase in Y users.
Still it’s safer financially for them to expand as little as possible.
And scaling back the plan should make the zoning approval easier.
If the objective of the expansion is to better serve the apparently 83% of users not from RB perhaps they should build a 2nd facility instead of expanding this one.
How about out in the wide open spaces of Shrwesbury Ave in Shrewsbury?
If it’s far enough North on Shrewsbury Ave. that facility would actually be closer for many RB Westsiders.
No Dan - the Ys lease ran out, they didn’t want to stay. The town wanted to sell the building and a bunch of folks from the community got the mayor to put together a community center “task force” which decided to keep the facility and bring in the Boys & Girls Club to run it.
Kevin - I LOVE your idea
Mark the lawyer sucks. He was very rude and obnoxious. He was rude to the board member. He is srrogant. When one of the community member went up to speak, he was rude and wanted her to sit down. Only speak if you have something different to say. He is arrogant.
Kevin,
That’s buying more land & hiring a full new staff… Not easier really. But to each his own opinion.
My thought is- yes maybe you might have to wait another extra 15 seconds to pull out onto Maple Ave- but if a child gets a chance to fight obesity with their programs.. and their life is prolonged… It’s worth it. Or if someone is able to use a heated pool and lives in less pain in their life… It’s worth it.
I live in Red Bank, and I know the wait to get onto any street… It’s a pain, but it’s just the way it is. Lets not be selfish, but instead- think about the countless people this expansion could help. From Red Bank or not.
Since The YMCA is located in Red Bank,it impacts the town both pos.& neg, it’s a non-profit, (NO TAXES TO RED BANK), how about giving that “17%” of Red Bank Y members a discount rate?
Wow ! This confirms what I have already known. Only 17% of the membership is from Red Bank. What a shame. No doubt that the YMCA is a GREAT place for children and families. However, they no longer serve “the community” in which they reside. While one of their slogans is “no one is turned away because of their inability to pay” The reality is that many people ARE turned away because of their inability to pay. Additionally, they make paultry efforts to reach out to the children and families in Red Bank that would most benefit from their services.
In my humble opinion if expansion is approved it should be with the stipulation that they be required to supply membership to “RED BANK” families who are not able to pay the high membership fees, yet they do not meet the level of poverty outlined by the Y in order to recieve assistance. If more people in Red Bank could AFFORD the YMCA, guaranteed more the 17% of it’s members would reside in Red Bank.
Katherine,
Thanks for your courteous and helpful reply.
I live in RB too.
Traffic delays are not the only concern, traffic safety is a bigger concern.
If the number of members increases according to the Y’s expectations there will be a corresponding increase in BOTH pedestrians crossing Maple (including “Y” kids) and in cars driving on Maple.
With that increase you will unavoidably have an increased rate of vehicle on vehicle collisions and an increased rate in VEHICLES HITTING PEDESTRIANS.
I understand your example of of people in pain needing to be able to access the heated pool. But it just doesn’t seem to me the crowds are nearly so bad that they can’t get in.
I don’t question the Y’s commitment at all.
But I very much question their judgment.
They’re tearing out at least part of their most recent expansion (the failed outdoor courts) for an even bigger expansion.
Even prudent expansion is risky.
Trying to make up for a failed expansion with a larger more complicated expansion is imprudent.
I know some RBers get upset if you say RB is a city, but it’s certainly not suburban.
And trying to appeal even more to the current 83% mainly suburban membership by making the area around the “Y” even more congested seems like a very bad idea.
I mentioned Shrewsbury Ave in Shrewsbury as a good site because the decrease in density from the RB side to the Shrewsbury side is striking. And it is more convenient for many on the Westside of RB.
Katherine, sorry for the long response.
But since I’ve gone on so long I should mention your point about the additional costs of a 2nd site is well taken.
But the RB “Y” will have zero liability if the 2nd site fails as long as it’s built by the newly created “Shrewsbury “Y”.
I realize there’s a gaping hole in my plan but I’ll give others the chance to post before addressing it.
And filling that gap has everything to do with the RB & Shrewsbury Y each making sure their members help them to truly meet the Y’s mission.
“If anyone was discourtious during the application it was the public who kept clapping and making fools of themselves every time someone got up and said: “My kid swims at the Y. The Y is great!”
What a “discourtious” way to speak of someone!
To Y not for everyone,
Sounds like you are broke and cannot afford to pay for membership. Look into their financila aid program. You might qualify. There is 2 kind of membership. One about 89 dollars for the whole family of 5(speaking for myself) is very cheap. This includes the use of family pool, lap pool and jacuzzi for me and my wife and hot tub. Classes and day care is free if I pay another extra 10 dollars a month. You cannot ask for a better rate. With the expansion they are not increasing membership(I enquired before supporting the expansion). Apply for financial aid if you cannot afford. Y is always accommodating.
Kevin,
I have to check into this- but I heard you cannot build a new YMCA with 50 miles of where one failed… Asbury Park… Let me look into that fact though before I get slammed with- “thats wrong”
And if RB is so concerned about people and safety with traffic- perhaps this town wouldn’t be the host of thousands of visitors a year with the fireworks, sidewalk sales & jazz festivals…
Just thoughts…
Enjoy this warm beautiful day!
Ahmad,
You are totally wrong on your assumption that the Y will not increase it’s membership. They currently have 9000 members, and are looking to increase it to 12000, that’s from the Y’s CEO. I don’t know where you got your information from, but the Y was not doing the renovation just because it wanted to give it’s current members more room? In the end my friend, the Y is a business just like everyone else, so don’t be confused.
Ahmed,
God has smiled on you and your family, $1200 a year is not a problem. Many working class people in the community DO NOT QUALIFY for AID, and still can not afford to pay the $250 joiner fee, $99.00 monthly fee, on top of the $50-$100 per person class fees.
My point is the YMCA is a GREAT PLACE for those who can afford it. But what about those who live in the community and CAN NOT afford to utilize the facilities. Don’t build in their back yard and ignore their needs.
Poor Ahmad - You have definitely been lied to and apparently you didn’t listen very carefully during the meeting you supposedly attended on Thursday. The President of the YMCA clearly testified that the reason they needed this expansion was to INCREASE their membership to 12,000 from the current 9,000. I don’t know who told you that wasn’t their goal, but if a lack of expansion was the only reason you supported the expansion, then apparently you really don’t support it. Welcome to our side.
Hi Dummies,
I meant increasing the membership fees. Y WILL NOT INCREASE THEIR MEMBERSHIP.
Ahmed, or whatever,
Your the idiot or dummies, as you put it. If you were more clear in your statements, then maybe people wouldn’t be so quick to jump down your pie-hole. Get your facts straight, if you need a little help with the dialog, not a problem, someone at the Y could help you, I think the class is only $20 for members!
Ahhhhhmed, whatever,
Your wrong again, the CEO said ” we look to increase our membership from 9k to 12k” what didn’t you hear???????? He said nothing about increase’s of memberships. Don’t you think as a CEO thats the LAST thing you would want to say in this economy!
Relax much anyone?
They said they are looking into increasing their number of members from 9,000 to 12,000 people. They said they have no plans to raise prices of that membership.
Clear to everyone?
Lets assume that “3,000 memberships” increase is a conservative estimate. Some of those will be families. If half are families of 2.5 then 1500×2.5 is 3750+1500=5250. If half again come every other day, then we’re looking at something like an additional 2625 cars a day rolling through an unmarked and relatively under patrolled intersection. I am sure had I seen the actual traffic study there are “expert” estimates for all of this, but really, 2600 cars a day is a HUGE addition to the area. No thanks. NIMBY
Maple Ave. is a F#%$ing State Hwy !!!!!!!!
It has, can, and will accomidate more vehicle trafic then any of you morons will notice !!!!!!
Capt. Nemo,
I never have agreed with you before, but today, I do! and for Chief “smokalotta” it’s not about your version of a F*&^ing state highway, it’s about the double parking on Maple, the amount of people running across Maple Ave. with NO crosswalks, it’s about people parking their cars on narrow side streets. Get a grip Chief!
Chief,
I have to disagree with you about the capacity of Maple Ave. What are the two worst intersections in RB? Newman Springs/Broad/Maple and Front/Maple/White/West/Riverside(/Monmouth). What do both intersections have in common? Maple Ave. Bergen/Maple is not my favorite intersection, either, and trying to get across Maple anywhere between Monmouth and Bergen feels like a game of Frogger.
That street is a problem, state highway or not, whether the Y expands or not.
I’d like to see the Y expand, but let’s not pretend that traffic is not an issue.
Fat lazy board members, and whiners.
Maybe it would be a better location for a SONICS or Burger King.
AND, let us NEVER FORGET that only a few weeks ago one of Red Bank’s Finest, acting in the capacity of a Crossing Guard, was literally RUN OVER trying to HELP our children cross Maple Ave. This road is a menace. People FLY down the two long stretches (on either side of Bergen). What we need here is a series of additional (and coordinated) lights – one at Reckless/Maple – timed with one at Chestnut/Maple. In this way we local residents can eliminate two issues 1) that antiquated “no left turn” from Reckless to Maple (which cause much of the problem), and 2) traffic regulation flowing into the squeeze at Monmouth. Of course if the RBPD just put a cop out there on Maple (like every other town does on their speedways), this wouldn’t be a problem, but since the police don’t actually do traffic enforcement in RB, well, here we are.
….and one other thing, specifically to the RB council members (and their political machine handlers) who read this site (and who infrequently use their real names even though we know some by way of anonymous posts), I may be crazy and disagreeable and ill-tempered, but I remain a registered voter. I know I am not alone – we residents ARE watching these kinds of critical “resident first” type votes – more so now than ever before.
Sounds like construction guy is out of work??? Maybe he was supposed to build the addition??
Captain,
I highly doubt 2000 + cars will be coming in and out. I live near there now and no where CLOSE is it that many… You cannot add more traffic lights on Maple, it will make is impossible to move 4 blocks. You have a problem with the traffic it seems- not the Y.
Katharine, Do you *not* have an issue with the current traffic on Maple? It’s already unbearable.
The flow of 35 is a total cluster-f, the way it ‘transitions’ from a 2-lane highway to a 35mph single lane right through a busy town, and dead ends at the Navesink, where you have more turns and lights just to get back onto a 2 lane highway. But where would you re-route anyway? Shrewsbury Ave? Bridge? It’s plain the original traffic engineering models didn’t predict the current levels of auto congestion. There is no way to cram more cars onto this stretch. There’s no scalable way forward.
FWIW, The Y is great. But if the *current* (not even expected) traffic models didn’t throw up red flags, than people are not dealing with reality.
Katharine, you are misinformed. At least that many cars a day flow to and from the current Y parking lot – recall that the Maple Ave entrance is merely One-Way, which means it at best gets only half the flow. The new plan calls for opening this up to Two-Way flow, which (by definition) double existing flow – and adds to it, any new membership driven traffic. BTW, that also means the school busses (or traveling teams, etc) will be using this entrance as an exit too, food for thought.
Trust me, I live where they all come out. I see the traffic, I live in it. Yes it is horrible- but the blame should not be put on the Y. That is just stupid. Put it on CB maybe? I get shut out of my driveway nights they have a show.. Which is every weekend. I am not “misinformed” on traffic. Anyone who lives in RB is very aware of it…
But like I stated earlier -Waiting an extra 10 seconds to pull out is worth lives being prolonged or saved, and their wellness of life improved. End of story…
…. so the crossing guard’s life put in danger is worth nothing?
An accident can happen with only one car a day or a thousand.
Nemo,
The accident involving the crossing guard had nothing to do with the Y. Let’s try to keep the hyperbole down.
…. the point Katherine and Dan is that adding more traffic increases the probability for accidents – considerably. I am not sure what that tipping point is, but I assure you, Red Bank is ALREADY over that tipping point for large blocks of daylight hours. Case and point that even the RBPD admits they simply do not have the manpower to effectively patrol – hence the need for more “traffic grants” and the increase in the traffic staff.
Katherine:
It’s not just a matter of waiting another ten seconds - patience is not the problem. I could wait all day and still not be able to see around the vehicles parked on Maple. When cars are lined up on both sides of Maple with pedestrians darting out from between them, there simply is not enough visibility to pull out safely onto Maple. Increasing the traffic to the Y can only increase the number of cars on the road that I can’t see coming.
One proposal many years ago and still should be looked at again is to make “re-route” Route 35 from the Shrewsbury Diner up Shrewsbury Avenue to the Cooper Bridge. This would keep the thru Rt. 35 traffic (traffic not wanting to go Red Bank or Shrewsbury)out of the mess on Maple Avenue and at West Front Street. I am sure Shrewsbury Borough would endorse the idea.
Maybe its not even necessary to have the state take over Shrewsbury Avenue….maybe some signage at Copper Bridge and at the Shreswbury Diner directing thru traffic to use Shrewsbury Avenue would be a start.
But back to the Y issue…..the new proposed access south of the existing one WILL BE A PROBLEM unless it is right turn out only.
I have to agree with Nemo, newcomer, pension man & others that realize that the traffic in that area would be greately impacted by more traffic, due to the Y expansion. Back in 1987, I got into an accident going from Waverly into the Y. I had to cross two lanes of traffic. I could not see on either side of the street due to the parked cars along Maple. It’s dangerous! More traffic, more danger, plus… the addition to the Y is just plain ugly and doesn’t fit into the neighborhood.
Robert- It will be a right turn only out
Many residents om the upper east side of Manhattan did not like the plans for the Guggenheim because it didn’t “blend in” with the neighborhood, the same for the Museum of Modern Art. There is a lot of integrity in visual diversity. People who are ignorant and myopic should have no part in any decisions that involve an intelligent visual palette.
More people more traffic, if that spot was a big store that brought jobs and more traffic - would it be denied - I doubt it very much.
The Y is great but it has ongoing financial issues. Let the financial viability of expansion rule over petty arguments and opinions by people who hardly have IQ’s big enough to get them out of bed in the morning let alone make a decision about a complex issue like this.
um Susan, we’re not talking about cultural iconoclastic values, it’s a freaking community YMCA, good grief.
Truth is, these are the kinds of growing pains RB will have to endure as our once town, now transit village, transitions to a city. I keep waiting for plans for a monorail and/or sub-regional airport….too bad that heliport idea didn’t take off (pun intended)
Susan…..of course a big store would be denied….it is not zoned for that type of use. And don’t insult folks….we all are entitled to have opinions…and quite frankly the Guggenheim still upsets the streetscape.
Katerine….as I understand it the applicant wanted full access…..believe zoning board was OK with right in and right out. I say forget the right in as well….folks travelling south on Maple will take the first drive in so why need the second to be right in?
Susan, While I do believe and support visual diversity, there comes a time when it”s just to obtuse. That is my opinion. That does not make me ignorant or myopic. People who have a intelligent visual palette are for the most part, open minded people. Ignorant people are name callers.
Oh, and Susan, It’s really good to know that Red Bank has people like you, with your big head, I mean IQ, that can make decisions about complex issues like this!
Robert:
I don’t think yoo know the first thing about the Guggenheim’s effect on the streetscape!