As Ray Mass (background) and Deborah Marks listened, zoning board member Vincent Light details his objection to granting variances for the proposed Courtyards at Monmouth housing project, below. (Click to enlarge) 
Less than a year after a new zone was created at Red Bank’s train station to encourage a mix of high-density housing and retail activity, the borough zoning board last night greenlighted a plan that could put even greater density, but no stores, on a vacant Monmouth Street lot.
The move, on a 5-2 vote, was driven by a desire to see something built on a lot frequently described as an eyesore and the belief that adding retail space in a town with numerous store vacancies was the wrong way to go, said board members who favored he plan.
“Yes, it’s a very dense project,” said board chair Lauren Nicosia. “But this is a property that hasn’t been developed and that Red Bank needs to be developed.”
Amboy Bank, which owns the property, had asked the board for variances to allow it to build up to 57 housing units on the site, which is bounded also by West and Oakland streets. Twelve of the units would conform to state guidelines for affordable housing, and all would be priced below $300,000, bank representatives said.
In giving their approval, several board members alluded to testimony by real estate expert Jeffrey Otteau, who said a new “economic reality” made adding retail square footage in town unwise, despite the view of town officials who last year touted a mix of retail and housing as the key to sparking vitality in the train station district.
After hearing Otteau, “I came to believe that retail would not be sustainable,” said board member Tom Williams.
Member Manny Carabel noted that the Amboy plan had the backing of Red Bank RiverCenter, which had previous made the inclusion of retail in the train station overlay zone a priority.
Board members Rosemary Minear and Vincent Light voted against the variances.
“I think this flies in the face of the recently adopted ordinance of the council for the overlay zone,” Minear said. “You’re asking for three times the density that’s allowed. That’s a lot.”
“This is the zoning board of adjustment,” said Light. “This is not the zoning board of rewriting. This application would be much stronger with retail or open space.”
The approval marks the third time in less than a decade that a housing project has been approved for the site, but Amboy still has to gain approvals for detailed site plans before it can start construction. Neighbors last night pressed for more open space, lower rooflines, shared parking with non-residents of the project and the inclusion of space for a food market.
Bank officials pledged to provide an overall mortgage to a developer of the 1.24-acre site, or to joint venture with one, to ensure the project gets built. They also pledged to make mortgages on every unit sold.
Thanks to Ms. Minear and Mr. Light for their votes and statements. The Red Bank Zoning Board has constantly ignored rules to suit the purposes of developers.
The idea that Red Bank needs to have that or any property developed at any cost is absurd. The ratables chase continues to fail (just look at your tax bill) and yet the same zoning board members continue to use that argument to pander to developers.
As for a lack of retail space - first Rivercenter wanted retail and the rules were changed to accomodate them. Now they support this project. Why do they have any say at all? And isn’t it rather short-sighted to decide that the current economic issues plaguing us are going to last longer than this gigantic project?
Amboy Bank offering to finance the project and make mortgages on every unit sold, by the way, isn’t a gift. It’s a great money-making opportunity for Amboy Bank. How about if instead they pledge to abide by the zoning ordinances and create a project that fits in with the rest of our neighborhood?
More wasted time and money listening to this at board meetings!
We’ll see soon enough. The potential for 120 or so new residents and their vehicles on such a small footprint will have a huge impact on the area. The comparisons of Red Bank to places like Hoboken that were brought up by the consultants for Amboy will start to actually make sense. Only it will be in traffic and parking issues and not quality of life.
I for one am thrilled! This property has been an eye sore for way to long. And if it does not survive the process, than the town should demand that the exsisting structures be knocked down and the site cleaned up.
I do agree that this corner needs renovation & has needed it for some time, however, I feel this project is way to dense! You wonder why the River Center is pushing this project? Well, look who is new to the board. Ed McKenna.In the last article regarding RiverCenter, Nancy stated that “since Ed can’t run for an appointed position in town”. I heard that the feds told Ed that they wouldn’t arrest him along with the Lynch Boy’s if he never ran for a political office again. That’s why he’s working through RC. And remember, he is the Chairman of the NJ Planning Commission. River Center should have no say in development issues in RB. New Overlay, Transit Village, more density, Oh yea…. we will become N.Brunswick if we let him have his way.
So the board would rather see something built than the empty lots even if it means it is too dense? Why have zoning regulations at all if they are just going to award variances to anyone who isn’t the YMCA?!
It’s appalling that our town put so much into updating the master plan and (like it or not) and putting the ordinance in place for the Transit Overlay district with the idea of completing the already vibrant shopping corridor of Monmouth St and then one slick dude comes along and suddenly maybe retail isn’t viable there anymore? The lack of commitment and faith in their vision by the Zoning Board leaves me extremely disappointed.
Also, to echo what Grace had to say, contruction is typically the last industry hit in a recession and the last to recover. So the idea that they approved this now is kind of ridiculous. There goes their continuous corridor just because they are tired of empty lots.
I can’t wait to see what gets approved for the empty lots on Front Street.
And remember, it was Amboy Bank that gave the two mortgages to the Childrens Cultural Center for 51 Monmouth Street, only after the reverter clause was removed from the $ 1.00 transaction.
Either way a fraud was perpetuated on the bank and the taxpayers.
Grace:
I’m respectfull asking:
1. what do you think should be put in that space? Keeping in mind only someone willing to committ their money can actually see their “ideal” project is built
2. what “rules” are the Board changing? As I understand it if there are no requested variances the Board must approve the Plan for a permitted use. So I see the Board’s very purpose as allowing a majority to approve a Plan requiring variances. I don’t see a majority using the discretion they’re legally provided as changing the rules. Not sure why anyone would want to keep the “rules” unchanged in this constantly changing economy.
3. why shouldn’t River Center have a say? I’d find it alarming if any RB elected or appointed official felt they should have no say.
4. why the hostility to Amboy offering mortgages to qualifying tenants? Of course they’re not offering a “gift” but the mortgages aren’t gifts to them either. I don’t see mortgages as “excellent money making opportunity” for them. Amboy and virtually every lender in the world just learned loans are a risky committment which will benefit them if they do their job right and the economy cooperates.
July 9, 2009
Bad loans spur overhaul for Old Bridge-based Amboy Bank
By Michael L. Diamond
Gannett New Jersey
Amboy Bancorp, an Old Bridge-based bank stung by bad real estate loans, must strengthen its management, bolster its finances and overhaul its oversight policies, according to an agreement signed by the company and banking regulators.
The agreement apparently is aimed at preventing a reprisal of Solomon Dwek, an Ocean Township real estate mogul who borrowed $67.7 million from the bank before going bust.
And it comes as Dwek’s bankruptcy court trustee seeks damages against Amboy and its chief executive officer for ignoring basic banking practices that could have stopped Dwek in his tracks.
Amboy has 13 branches in Middlesex County and two in Somerset County with $180 million in deposits. It recently reported a loss of $1.8 million in the first quarter.
Amboy not long ago was considered one of the most profitable banks in the nation, taking advantage of the booming real estate industry. But its fortunes turned when the real estate market collapsed.
Nearly two years ago, experts told the Asbury Park Press that the bank made itself susceptible when it made large loans to two big customers, namely Dwek and Kara Homes Inc., a homebuilder that went bankrupt, instead of spreading out its risk.
The company signed the agreement on June 29 with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance.
Among the provisions, Amboy must:
– Evaluate the qualifications and performance of senior management.
– Strengthen credit risk management procedures.
– Ensure real estate appraisals conform to industry standards.
– Improve its collateral position so that it can recoup money from a borrower who defaults.
– Submit a plan to improve earnings and a budget for 2009.
– Submit a plan to maintain sufficient capital.
– Improve its policies to detect suspicious activity.
“What the Fed is doing . . . is they have discovered the banks’ primary capital is very thin or may have run out because of bad loans or bad investments,” said Peter Morici, an economist and professor at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business. “If they don’t raise new capital, they’ll shut it or merge it with another bank.”
Amboy President and Chief Executive Officer George E. Scharpf in a statement said the board of directors and senior managers recently raised a significant amount of capital.
“We are making substantial progress in addressing a number of the issues raised in the agreement,” Scharpf said.
Amboy officials said the agreement with regulators wasn’t directly the result of their relationship with Dwek, a real estate investor who was arrested in May 2006 for defrauding PNC Bank and forced to file for bankruptcy in 2007.
But Charles A. Stanziale, Dwek’s bankruptcy trustee, said in court documents filed in March that “the dealings between Dwek, Amboy and Scharpf ignored the bounds of a customary banking relationship between borrower and lender.”
Stanziale described several instances in which Scharpf arranged for Amboy to loan Dwek millions without performing appraisals on properties used for collateral or getting approval from the loan committee.
The bank also delayed recording the mortgages, which jeopardized the bank’s legal rights to the land and didn’t alert others that there were liens on the property, the documents said.
Stanziale described one meeting at the end of September 2005 in which Dwek asked Scharpf for a $20 million loan to make a down payment on 30 Broad St. in New York, whose tenants include the New York Stock Exchange.
Scharpf told Dwek the $91 million property was too expensive to purchase outright. Dwek responded that he planned to flip it and sell to a third party for a profit. But neither Amboy nor Scharpf conducted due diligence or underwriting, according to the court papers.
If they had, “they would have learned that pursuant to the proposed purchase contract for the 30 Broad property, Dwek was only required to make an initial deposit of $1 million, not $20 million,” the court documents said.
Stanziale, who didn’t return a telephone call seeking comment, said in the documents that Amboy would have raised red flags about Dwek — to protect both itself and other Dwek lenders — if it had simply performed due diligence.
“Amboy and Scharpf were so eager to participate in the profits promised by Dwek that they chose to disregard the fraudulent nature of these transactions,” the document said.
A request for Scharpf to comment about the specific allegations outlined in the bankruptcy court filing was declined.
——————————————————————————–
How can they justify this and project on Leroy while giving the YMCA such a hard time?
The west side is in great shape and growing w/reasonable parking. Last thing we want is more of what we see on Broad. Is the next step here with this density to put parking meters on Monmouth in this area?
Damn lunatics are ruining our town! I keep saying they think making Red Bank look like Brooklyn or Staten Island is progress. They are dead wrong. Stop the madness!!!
57 units on 1.24 acres is ok in Red Bank, but one town over, 10 units on 1 acre in Fair Haven is a cause for a protest.
This project is way too dense. As is anyone who approved it.
Vince Light looks like Jim Cantorie from the weather channel
The site should be developed, but this is way too dense. I am totally against this site plan.
The people who want to move to Red Bank to commute to NYC are not 20something or 30something singles who want to buy condos by the train station. Those people actually move to NYC and explore that urban adventure.
People who move to Red Bank to commute to NYC are middle aged professional couples who can afford to buy houses and want to live in a small town that offers a lot of city like walkable amenities. And perhaps raise a family. I know. I’m one of these people.
This dense development (for supposedly 20something and 30something singles) is going to drive away couples and families who can afford current Red Bank housing stock, and drive down property values around the train station. And possibly the town in general.
yeh, like density really drove down the property values in Manhattan, brooklyn, LA, Austin Texas,etc.
Grow Up.
If i owned property in a great town like Red bank I would also try and develop it to the maximum occupancy to get the most value out of it.
That is why single family houses became two famil or three family if you qualify the basement in town.
There is nothing wrong with development as long as it is safe and is for the good of all residents and businesses and part of the master plan.
If the plan of red bank is to remain a 5000-10000 person town then make sure the population statistics are put into the plan to stop over development.
When you reach the max, you reach the max.
Who says we have reached the max.
I, for one, am all for additional tax based housing but my school tax will increase I know.
Great fireworks tonite to boot!
Did I read this right?
Over the past decade, approvals for increased density have been granted for two projects, and the developers have chosen to let the properties sit idle. Because the property has been vacant for so long, it’s an eyesore. Because it’s an eyesore, the developer gets approval for even more density.
What kind of behavior does that encourage? It sends the message, “Wait until your properties until are derelict before going to the Zoning Board; you’ll get bigger variances.”
And retail space is not required because of current economic conditions? If this developer is in a hurry, the project will be done in what, 3 years? But this developer is like the last two, and has no intention of building this project; it’s just a way to increase the property’s value.
Perhaps the Zoning Board should wander over to Wallace St. and look at occupancy at The Metropolitan. Current economic conditions argue against development of condos.
So all the board has done is grant ever-increasing density to a project that no one is going to build in the foreseeable future.
Those increasing approvals have increased the value of that land. It actually makes it impossible to use that land for anything less dense, because now the land’s cost is based on the increased density.
I just hope the tax assessor is keeping up with the increase in the value of this property as the result of the zoning board’s actions.
Dan:
Good points.
But any message RB may be sending to developers is only one thing they have to consider.
The ONLY certainty for developers is that they get no income from undeveloped properties.
They can’t be sure when they’ve reached the end of the line on density.
And they certainly can’t be sure that even if increased density is approved in the future the overall value of their property won’t have dropped while they’re waiting to file a request for greater density.
Again, let me remind you all that the Zoning & Planning Boards are hand picked by Ed McKenna. Chairman of the NJ Planning Commision,Lynch buddie, pro density, friend to all developers, with very questionable ethics. Now he is on the River Center Board, because he is not allowed to be in an elected position. Don’t you find it strange that the River Center,which was established to manage & redevelope the downtown business distric, is becoming very vocal regarding re-zoning & housing issues?
“yeh, like density really drove down the property values in Manhattan, brooklyn, LA, Austin Texas, etc.”
Manhattan, Brooklyn, LA, Austin,…Red Bank.
How could we have been so blind?
Kevin,
The previous zoning board approval for a variance was a fairly naked attempt to make money off the property without building anything. As soon as the variance was approved, the property went on the market. It is quite possible to buy a property, get zoning variances, and then resell the property at a nice markup since the variances increase the value of the property.
It’s like house-flipping, only instead of actually improving the property, the “developers” just add variances.
And anyone who like to develop that property as anything buy high-density housing is now priced out of the market.
Watcher:
That was Brandon Brezniak and he no longer works there from what I hear. Anyway its the Zoning Board not planning board!
I’m sorry but I drove down Broad St and counted so many vacant offices, stores, restaurants that I was shocked. Red Bank will soon be Dead Band if something isn’t done. I live less than a mile away and it can take me more than 1/2 hour to get into town (I have to cross the bridge that leads to the train station and that’s murder getting into town that way). I’ve heard so many complaints about people not going to RB just because the traffic and parking is horrible!
Another thing, what happened to Triumph Brewery? I’m sure (I won’t mention any names) some powerful person in RB that owns a Brew Pub through his weight around and stopped that project, what a shame!