COURTYARDS PROJECT WINS FINAL OK
The development, fronting on Monmouth, West and Oakland streets, calls for a dozen units for low- and moderate-income buyers. (Click to enlarge)
With a last-minute concession to neighbors, a plan to build 57 residences on a vacant lot near the Red Bank train station won final approval Thursday night.
It’s the third such plan for the property, after two earlier ones ran aground. But a lawyer for the property owner, Amboy Bank, pledged that this one, called Courtyards at Monmouth like its immediate predecessor, will actually get built.
The proposal, by Amboy subsdiary GS Realty, has been in the works for year. Last July, a divided zoning board granted variances for the density of the plan; since January, separate hearings have been underway on requests for a long list of variances, including structures up to 53 feet high in a zone that allows only 40 feet.
As they were in the first round, neighbors were ambivalent about the plan. Nearly all who spoke at the hearings expressed relief that a long-vacant service station and two dilapidated Victorian houses would finally be replaced by something new and vibrant.
Yet they balked on particulars, including a proposed four-foot setback for the 12-unit affordable structure, to be sited at the corner of Oakland and West. Nearby residents said their homes were uniformly set back about 15 feet, and that granting a variance would ruin their ability to enjoy sunsets on their porches.
“Having that building on the end just sort of wall-off the corner is very disturbing,” said Amy Green.
“It’s a plus for the neighborhood,” Mandy Hanigan of Oakland Street said of the plan. But she saw deficiencies in it that she said were all traceable to its size.
“I hope the bank does make their money back, but by putting in less units,” she said.
Zoning board member Vincent Light, who last year opposed the density request, suggested a change in the alignment of parking spaces that might allow the building to be moved back from the street. After a huddle of architects and others working for Amboy, attorney Ken Pape told the board that the building would be moved up to 15 feet from the curb.
The plan also calls for an easement that would allow the borough to install solar collection panels on the roof and a provision for a community-shared rental car that would be available to non-residents at the Courtyards.
At the vote, board members had little to say about the plan, except for Rosemary Minear, who cast the lone vote in opposition, citing the density as well a plan to put solar panels on a canopy over a parking area.
“I know you’ve answered many of the residents’ concerns, but you haven’t answered the concerns of the borough,” she said, calling the project “too much.”
In other board business, a hearing on plan to turn the former Harper’s Copy Center on East Front Street into a bait and tackle shop was tabled until May 5.
Apr 25, 2011 @ 13:34:47
It’s discouraging that, while the new structure will have 57 units, only a dozen will be for “low- and moderate-income buyers.” With the economy in its present condition and people in need of affordable homes, the town should be pushing for the majority of this development, if not all, to go to affordable housing. But of course, we are going for profits over people here.
This structure should also be in compliance with all zoning laws, not looking for loopholes and exceptions to make it larger. The other residents in the area shouldn’t have to lose out for this project to be created. But again, we are going for profits over people.
Apr 25, 2011 @ 14:53:57
Thank you Rosemary, for voting in the best interest of Red Bank. I have waited a long time to see something happen with that corner, but this is TOO DENSE. This is gonna be like the “Metropolitian on Wallace St. Way to big and to much concrete.
Apr 25, 2011 @ 16:39:18
How many dwelling units per acre is this?
And what is wrong with solar panels over a parking lot canopy? Brilliant. Will probably catch and handle stormwater as well.
But if everyone is saying too dense, how dense is it?
Apr 25, 2011 @ 17:34:02
I’m happy to see some affordable housing going up in Red Bank. Density bonuses are very common (if not the norm) when affordable housing is being developed, so I’m not surprised at all that the variances were granted. It’s too bad that the developer wasn’t going for more affordable units in the project – I wonder how the market rate ones will sell, considering it’s still a pretty tough market for credit right now.
Apr 25, 2011 @ 20:38:29
There are 57 units, only 12 are affordable housing.
While I am glad that RBG has been reporting on this, I have to take issue with the notion that the neighbors have been ambivalent in any way. We have been going to these meetings for over a year now in an effort to make sure the Board heard our concerns. The big issue was the density, but that was approved last year despite neighbors’ concerns. The approval of the higher density drove the need for the bucket full of additional variances required.
see the 2nd round of variances here
https://data.c3alert.us/file/download/1f10a4a5-6abc-48bf-91d9-8f52c28c9c28.file
I would like to thank Rosemary Minear for listening to our concerns and for
casting the lone no vote.
Apr 25, 2011 @ 21:39:17
Cindy does raise a good point. This will be a matching eyesore to the monstrosity on Wallace Street.
This construction should be protested, pure and simple. If anyone wants to help organize one, e-mail me at pnoble428@yahoo.com.
Apr 26, 2011 @ 01:16:54
The Metropolitan is a monstrosity and remember, sales there were a flop, even at the auction. They never did sell all of them and it’s mostly rentals now. And there were only 38 of them, this is 57!
This is a recipe for a similar flop. No one wants to live so close to the noise of the train and the riff raff on Monmouth Street, no matter how politically incorrect it is to say that. (Read the police blotter) How are you gonna sell 57 of them?? They will end up as rentals, too, unless they are DIRT cheap.
Apr 26, 2011 @ 10:49:27
I too would like to echo the sentiments of my neighbor, the esteemed Mr. Greene.
Neighbors to this project were in no way ambivalent…this project is too dense.
We’ve learned from the many hours spent in opposition at zoning board hearings for this project and the
other proposed prior to this that it’s not productive
to argue density at site plan hearings. As density was already approved, we sought to target the setbacks
and buffers that would most impact neighboring properties.
I’d also like to extend my thanks to Rosemary Minear to hearing our concerns.
Apr 26, 2011 @ 14:22:48
My words were that its a plus for the neighborhood in some ways but there are major issues that will negatively impact us. There was plenty to balk at, like my neighbor Mr. Greene said, a ‘bucket full of variances.’ It was absurd. And as Mrs. Barons stated, we could not argue the density any further as it was already approved. I spent hours walking around the neighborhood in June passing out letters to try and get more people to come out in opposition with me and 5 other families. I got one response. Ill say the same old mantra thats plagued this corner for years now, Its Too Big and this is the biggest yet. The bank has said the units will be below $300K in earlier testimony, so Im sure they will sell but that will bring too many people and too many cars to an area already squeezed for parking. We tried to keep pushing the points that the area is too small to handle what they proposed, and there is no green space. We hoped they would have been required to revisit some of their plans and scale down. No luck. Pat, I wish you were around a year ago. Do a search for Courtyards at Monmouth and youll see all the past stories here. Which brings up another point, Courtyards? None.
Thank you Ms. Minear.