The Community YMCA could get another shot at expansion if the borough council approves a proposed zone amendment. (Photo by Dustin Racioppi)
By DUSTIN RACIOPPI
The official opinion is in, and now it will be in the hands of the Red Bank Planning Board to determine whether a stretch of Maple Avenue should permit recreational facilities that already has one: the Community YMCA.
Borough Planner Richard Cramer writes in a report that the borough council’s recent introduction of an ordinance amending the borough’s zoning law to allow recreational facilities such as the Y to operate on Maple Avenue fits in with the borough’s Master Plan, said Mayor Pasquale Menna.
Currently, the YMCA is nonconforming and operates as a variance in Maple Avenue’s professional office zone. The nonprofit’s pushed for the zoning amendment after a losing bid to expand the facility last month.
“It is consistent with the master plan,” Menna said. “It makes sense to not discriminate against the Y.”
After failing to gain a supermajority vote from the zoning board in early February, YMCA representatives urged the council to consider changing the ordinance to allow the Y as a permitted use.
They argued that not even a mile away on the same street the Atlantic Club is permitted, yet the YMCA must seek variances to operate. A change to the ordinance, as proposed, would likely pave the way for representatives to return to the borough with its expansion plan, or a different version of it.
Now that Cramer’s opinion is in, Menna said it’s up to the planning board to review it and decide whether the ordinance change is, in fact, consistent with Red Bank’s master plan. If so, then the council would likely take action on the ordinance at its meeting at the end of this month, Menna said.
When the council introduced the ordinance, it was met with some controversy among the public and even an appointed board member in town.
Rosemary Minear, who sits on the zoning board and voted against the Y expansion, asked the council why it didn’t change the ordinance a long time ago rather than now, so quickly after the expansion was shot down.
“Why now do you feel it’s so necessary?” she asked at the meeting.
Menna on Wednesday said the reason was simple: When the borough was re-examining its master plan, the YMCA was in the process of hearings with the planning and zoning boards. Tinkering with the master plan regarding that property would have interfered with the jurisdiction of those boards, he said, and could have resulted in legal action.
Now, he says, is the appropriate time to let the planning board decide if a change to the ordinance is in order. And it’s only fair to have the governing bodies in town look at issues that affect the public, he added.
“By and large, a lot of people are saying, ‘let’s take a look at this in a very objective way,’” Menna said. “Let’s either approve it or disapprove it.”
Another issue raised at last week’s meeting came from Steve Fitzpatrick, a well-known borough hall watchdog. Fitzpatrick charged that there’s a conflict of interest involving several public officials over the sale of 51 Monmouth St. to the YMCA’s Children’s Cultural Center a decade ago.
Of the group he pointed fingers at — Councilmen Art Murphy and Mike DuPont, Menna, as well as borough attorney Ken Pringle — only DuPont conceded a potential conflict and recused himself because he has been a Y member for 25 years and admitted an “affinity” for the facility and organization. Though his firm had previously been removed from dealing with matters involving 51 Monmouth, Pringle determined that there were no other conflicts, and Menna said Wednesday, as he did at the meeting, that he is satisfied with Pringle’s professional opinion.
The planning board’s next scheduled meeting is March 15. The council’s final meeting of the month is a week later, on March 22.
How fitting that the Planning Board’s hearing is scheduled for the Ides of March.
How is this good for the town? Like or dislike the YMCA, it is one of the way to many, non profits that pay no taxes already in town. To change the ordinance would incourage other non-profits. Have they offerred any type of payment in lue of taxes?
I am presently a member of the YMCA, and enjoy it. But I won’t be able to enjoy it much longer if my taxes do not stabilize, and I must move. I understand that most of these non-profits have been here for over 30+ years. That does not mean we have to accomidate thier every wish. If they threaten to go to court, so be it. The Mayor should not coward every time one threatens to sue.
Mr. Mayor,
I think you’re cynically throwing around the terms “discrimination” to muddy the waters.
Unless you can explain the specific type of discrimination (religious, race, gender, age) the Y is suffering under the Master Plan, I’ll just assume you’re resorting to hyperbole.
As I emailed you, there’s nothing on the other side of Maple from the Atlantic Club, which is so clearly not the case for the “Y”.
The traffic increase is not just a convenience concern as flacks for the “Y” have been saying.
It’s a safety issue. More pedestrians will be hit by vehicles as the number of vehicles driving to the Y increases along with the number of pedestrians corssing Maple to get to it.
And a governing body has already looked at the issue, the RB Zoning Board.
Why not let that process play out rather than going straight to this end run?
I know their attorney blew some smoke about appealing the Zoning Board’s decision.
I say he was blowing smoke because that decision can only be overturned if the court finds it was arbitrary and capricious.
Of course their attorney will argue it was.
He may even throw in “discrimnatory” now since you’ve said our Master Plan is.
But I doubt he’s so certain he’d give any guarantees to the “Y” he’ll be able to prevail on that uphill battle.
I’m disappointed, Mr. Mayor, you’re better than this.
It’s not even a well disguised end run.
You’re very smart and talented and your barreling ahead on this is out of character.
The overiding issue is not the Y’s expansion.
It’s that RB isn’t quite urban and it’s not quite suburban. What it’s to become is what needs to be addressed OVERALL in the Master Plan.
I suggest that’s what you and the Council do instead of changing it for this one project which will clearly tip this one section of Maple more towards the urban side.
As I told you, I’m not trying to stop the project outright.
I ask you and the Council use the ZB denial to get the “Y” to scale back their plans, instead of just handing them this present which the neighborhood will pay dearly for.
The letter above makes perfect sense. It sounds like the Mayor is trying an end around move to get this done without honoring the process.
It is precisely these kinds of dubious legal maneuvers which foster the potential to sully an otherwise honorable intent from local politicians. I urge due process. I find ironic the duplicity to be found in encouraging rampant non-profit development, while congruently begrudging consequential overbearing tax burdens. As if the “Hospital that Swallowed Red Bank” was not enough, central/downtown Red Bank residents soon have to endure the RBC Sports Center Monstrosity and now potentially the Super Y. Enough already!
This doesn’t pass the sniff test. The Y couldn’t get what it wanted under current rules (zoning), so we’re changing the rules? The area is zoned as it is for a reason - Kevin hit it on the head.
I’ve said this before - I am not a Y member, but I support their mission and am willing to live through the noise and inconvenience of construction. (I can see the Y from my front porch so it’s close.) But traffic safety is a real issue here. Are we making any changes at all to the Y’s proposal in order to address that? Are we considering other steps such as banning parking on Maple in the area of the Y? (Banning the parking would be a huge help, as it would increase visibility in the area tremendously with respect to both ongoing traffic and pedestrians. I realize this would inconvenience Maple Ave residents and we should think about a solution for them.)
You all are missing one fact in this matter. The YMCA and the Atlantic Club are in the same zone. However, when the Atlantic Club was proposed, the Borough of Red Bank created a zone within a zone for the block that the Atlantic Club is on, thereby making them a permitted use. My guess is that if a court were to get involved, this zone within a zone would not sit well. That is why Menna is talking about discrimination.
stop blaming the YMCA for traffic problems Its the idiots on the phones and speeders and illigals that dont have a clue that are the problemthat causes the accidents
Ah, Perhaps the Y should sell the place and move across the river to the “town center” property in Middletown. Too much traffic in Red Bank anyway, and they apparently aren’t wanted.
Wakeup:
Increased traffic brings increased accidents.
Pedestrians have gotten hit by cars well before cell phones were invented.
It would be great if there were no speeders.
There always will be.
It’s that whole “human” thing.
Traffic safety depends on planning based on the way people actually drive, not how you wish they would drive.
You cannot compare the Altantic Club with the YMCA. The neighborhoods in which they are located could not be more dissimilar. The Altanic Club is perfect for the property it is located on. The YMCA isn’t.
Formerrber,
Thanks for the add’l info on the “zone within a zone”.
However not letting entities outside it inot that zone is not discriminatory.
What would be discriminatory is if the “Y’ were already in that zone but were treated differently from the Atlantic Club becausue the Y is affiliated with a religous org or becausue the “Y”’s membership is more ethnically diverse than the Atlantic Club’s membership.
And even if a case could be made it would be discriminatory not to expand the zone to include the “Y” why wouldn’t the Mayor wait for someone to make that charge?
Instead he publicly stated it would be discriminatory, which will not help RB defense if such a charge is ever made.
You must understand that if you have an issue with parking on Maple or you think the Y should not let people park on the street, that is not the Y’s decison, that is the town’s trafficing department. So instead of blaming the Y for that and requesting them to make a change that they actually have no control over makes no sense.
Hi Katherine:
I’m not blaming the Y for any problems caused by parking on Maple - I am suggesting that one way to remediate potential traffic issues caused by an expansion of the Y might be to remove parking on Maple, because then it would be much easier to see oncoming traffic as well as pedestrians crossing the street. If we want to expand the Y, maybe we can consider removing the Maple Ave parking as part of the plan.
Even if we only remove parking on the east side of the street, that would help a great deal because then you could see up and down Maple as you pull out onto it, and you would also see any pedestrians much more easily.
And maybe limit parking on the west side of the street to Maple Ave residents, so they can still park on the street… Although I know it’ll be inconvenient to cross the street in order to get to their cars.
Last week, Dupont was whining about how many nonprofits were in Red Bank (many of which had been courted by his law partner, the former Mayor). Now he’s all for YMCA expansion - his recusal from the meeting being an admission of this. PICK A LANE MR DUPONT
After these long conversations on whether or not a community Y ,that a town is so lucky to have, should be allowed to expand is disheartening. Red Bank High School is allowed to expand in that little space omitting any parking. Now here we have an organization that allows less fortunate to also use their facilities. They are not treated so kindly like the Atlantic Club. When patrons use the facility they also shop in town, when they normally wouldn’t. The way the Y is now competing for gym members is hard. Having a full Y for families is good for resale of homes in a walking community. Bring the families back to Red Bank instead of many empty stores.
Deborah:
Red Bank HS is in Little Silver.
Surely she meant RBC.
Dan:
I didn’t think of that.
She probsbly did mean RBC since they’re expansion is going on right now.
Dan,
BTW not too beat a dead horse on old posting.
But I know you like to see evidence for people’s positions.
The following is excerpted from a 1971 Kansas City PD study (link: http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/kcppe.pdf ):
Three controlled levels of routine preventive patrol were used in the experimental areas.
One area, termed “reactive,” received no preventive patrol. Officers entered the area only in
response to citizen calls for assistance. This in effect substantially reduced police visibility in
that area. In the second area, called “proactive,” police visibility was increased two to three
times its usual level. In the third area, termed “control,” the normal level of patrol was
maintained. Analysis of the data gathered revealed that the three areas experienced no
significant differences in the level of crime, citizens’ attitudes toward police services, citizens’
fear of crime, police response time, or citizens’ satisfaction with police response time.