GIVE ‘EM AN INCH, THEY’LL TAKE A BLOCK
One of the crappiest and, apparently, most star-crossed corners of Red Bank seems destined to stay that way for the foreseeable future.
Last week, the new owner of property at the southeast intersection of Monmouth and West streets, just a block east of the train station, lost a battle to have a development plan for the site heard by the planning board.
At issue: whether one inch of space between proposed structures makes them distinct buildings.
The decision by the zoning board was strictly a jurisdictional one, and answered whether the zoning or planning board should have oversight of the plan. But it could lead to yet more litigation over a parcel that has seen it’s share of courtroom tussles, the lawyer for the would-be developer says.
The property is the site of disused vacant filling station, two deteriorated houses on Monmouth Street, a small garage and some empty lots.
The site was to have been developed by Building and Land Technology, which in 2003 won approvals to erect 24 condos and five townhouses there. But the case landed in court over conflict-of-interest allegations. Late last year, the approval was upheld by Monmouth County Superior Court, but BLT sold the project to RB Monmouth LLC without seeking building permits.
RB Monmouth is unrelated to BLT, said RB Monmouth principal George Coffenberg, of Ocean Township. He also said he scrapped the approved plans he acquired from BLT so he could conform to suggestions from the Visual Improvement Committee of Red Bank RiverCenter, which wanted to see retail incorporated into the project.
RB Monmouth wants to erect what it says are five buildings in two clusters: three along Monmouth Street, separated by one inch of space; and two on West Street, ditto. Each of the buildings would have street-level retail space and residential space on the upper floors; the Monmouth Street structures, at four stories tall, would have an additional, second story of office space. (The schematic above enlarges if you click on it.)
The matter landed in front of the zoning board last week in the form of an appeal. Planning & zoning director Donna Smith Barr had previously told the developer that he’d have to take his plans before the zoning board. The developer disagreed, arguing that its plan called for no density or use variances.
That argument, made by RB Monmouth lawyer Wayne Peck, was unanimously rejected by the zoning board last week. But not before the argument veered off into a rather esoteric argument about how much space between structures is required before a structure can properly be called a building.
Peck says that while there are minimum zoning requirements, subject to variances, there’s no official definition of ‘building’ that incorporates a reference to distance to the nearest structure. He says the RB Momnouth plan is little different from what exists along Broad Street in downtown Red Bank.
“If one inch doesn’t make them buildings, then how many inches of separation make separate buildings?” he asked the panel. “Whether we can build at one inch is something one of your two boards will have to decide. But these are separate buildings, admittedly close together.”
“I have doubt that we’re talking about five buildings,” Barr said at the hearing. And when in doubt, she defers to the zoning board, she said.
At a limit of four residential units per structure, Barr’s interpretation would mean that the builder could erect only eight on the site, instead of the 20 being sought.
“They are so close that they’re almost indiscernible,” borough engineer Richard Kosenski said of the buildings. He said that allowing RB Monmouth to proceed unchecked “will result in a density that is greater than the density in any zone” in town.
Peck said repeatedly that his client’s aim in appealing Barr’s decision was to head off future legal challenges to any approvals based on a claim that the project had been approved by the wrong board. “This decision exposes my client to an absolute slam dunk loss if we win approval and someone challenges it based on jurisdiction,” he said afterward, addding that Coffenberg would have to decide whether to accept the decision or “take it to Freehold.”
Even if RB Monmouth manages to win approval, though, it would appear unlikely to be issued a building permit anytime soon. The Two Rivers Water Reclamation Authority, to which Red Bank directs its sanitary waste, last month instituted a ban on new sewer connections.
Kosenski told the borough council this week that the ban could postpone new development in the 12 affected towns, and Fort Monmouth, by two years or more.
Jan 10, 2012 @ 22:47:11
https://www.trtnj.com/issues/100709/news5.php
After Reading Ed McKennas comments in this Two River Times article I felt maybe the towns people should know what really happened. I have hundreds of documents supporting everything that is written here so this is not just an opinion and is backed by facts. I owned the property at Monmouth and West Streets and purchased it with an Amboy Bank loan in Aug 2006. I bought it after the former owner lost a conflict of interest issue with the BLT project. I was told that I just needed to go back for a rehearing without the conflict and it would be approved. I made application in Sept or Oct 2006. The courts had decided it just needed a rehearing and not a new application. Kevin Kennedy the zoning board attorney would not agree to a rehearing and I then went before Judge Lawson at the Monmouth County Court House where he demanded that Red Bank give me a rehearing in Dec 2006 (I have the transcripts). Kevin Kennedy then agreed but wrote in the agreement What if it snows? as they only had a certain time frame to rehear the application. Around this same time Red Bank passed an ordinance to expand the Rivercenter zone to include my property. I thought maybe that is why the town was giving me a hard time and wanted me to follow their vision of creating a retail corridor from the train station to Broad St along Monmouth St. I was also told that the BLT project could be tied up in court again because the density exceeded what was allowed in the zone. In March of 2007 I created a plan to build the Condos over retail. We eventually followed the zone which permitted 2 condos per floor and 4 condos per building over retail. I also placed 5 buildings over 7 separately taxed building lots. At this time the Rivercenter endorsed the project and it met all of their requirements. T & M and Red Bank Planning and Zoning continued to say it needed zoning approval and my professionals stated it needed Planning approval. The reason for me wishing to go to the planning board was that very few projects were before that board and nearly 30 projects were before the zoning board which would delay the approval process. When it became clear that no matter what plan I would design would be forced to the zoning board, I contacted Mayor Menna. I then met with him at his Red Bank law office and showed him the plans. He agreed with me that the plans would require planning board approval. A few days later at the end of April 2007 I attended a Democratic fund raising party at Mayor Mennas home. He then introduced me to Rich Kosenski of T & M who seemed annoyed. We then spoke and I told him I wanted to go to the planning board because it would be a faster approval time and it was costing me a lot of money to carry the property. He then said with a laugh I know it is He also said why did you drop the BLT project, we would have approved it. I explained that I was concerned it could be tied up in the courts again. He said he would see what he could do. I was then introduced to Christine McKenna by Mayor Menna and he said you are going before her board meaning the planning board. A few days later I received a letter stating that my project still needed zoning board approval. I called Mayor Menna and asked why and he said he would look into it. I then called him a few days later and I could tell by his reaction that he was having trouble getting it straighten out to go to the proper board. I then told him I planned to go to the authorities over the handling of my applications. I then contacted the Monmouth County Prosecutors Office and they began an investigation around May of 2007. They finished their investigation a few months later and stated that they could not find criminal wrong doing but that I had a strong lawsuit against them. In May 2007 my attorney, planner, engineer, and architect who had all worked on projects in Red Bank in the past began to argue with the positions that Red Bank Zoning and T & M were taking about the project going to the zoning board when our evidence supported a planning board hearing. None of them had experienced the issues I was having with other projects they had been involved with. We followed the guidelines as outlined in the Red Bank Zoning and Building Ordinances. The borough officials decided not to answer us after they wrote some conflicting letters and said you can appeal at the zoning board which we did in July 2007. At that hearing which is covered in this article and of which I have transcripts the zoning board decided to support Donna Barrs decision even though they and Rich Kosenski of T and M are recorded as referring to the project as 5 buildings which is what we claimed and showed as 5 separate boxes on the plan. At issue was how much separation needed to create a C variance to be heard by the planning board which they did not seem able to answer. I eventually changed the plan and created the 15 foot separation and eliminated the variance all together with the new plan submitted in Aug 2007 and still had the 20 condos over 5 retail spaces in 5 separate buildings. It was approved to go to the planning board in Oct 2007. We then scheduled a hearing for Dec 2007. A few days before the hearing, I was told the hearing was cancelled because the planning board was not meeting that day. I then read in Red Bank Green that a hearing for a large Buena Sierra parking variance took place at the meeting that was supposedly cancelled. I then had my first hearing in Jan 2008. In Dec 2007 COAH was eliminated yet Red Bank wanted to make sure I created affordable housing based on rules that did not exist. In March 2008 my approval was granted for 20 condos over 5 retail spaces. In April 2007 my attorney was on the phone an hour before the planning board was scheduled to sign off on the resolution. They never did nor did they ever tell us that they did not finalize it. In May of 2008 the approval resolution was done and there is a 45 day appeal time so that construction could not begin until July 2008. At this time Amboy Bank had many of its clients in trouble and was not willing to lend the construction money that they said would be provided once I had approvals. The economy and real estate market was bad at this time and I was unable to find other financing or buyers for the project. I then gave the property back to Amboy Bank. I find it interesting that Ed McKenna supported the approvals before and after me but never supported my project even though it was the only one that followed the zoning regulations. The other 2 projects were approved with at least double density. The most recent Amboy approval was granted the distance between building variance by the planning board which was the same variance that the town stated needed zoning board approval for my project. So when you look at the time it has taken to get something built on this property you should look at those that were in positions to look out for the best interest of the town. Approving a project with a conflict and delaying my efforts on a nearly variance free project led to years of lost revenue to the town. Had I not been delayed, I would have been able to build and it would most likely be generating a lot of tax revenue for the town yet not overly dense and in keeping with the zoning laws.
Jan 11, 2012 @ 09:17:30
I made a mistake. April 2007 regarding finalizing the resolution took place in April 2008.
Jan 12, 2012 @ 18:01:43
Judge Lawson Decision
https://courtyardsatmonmouth.wordpress.com/
Jan 12, 2012 @ 20:24:04
Lawson is in with the good old boys.