WOMAN’S CLUB GETS SECRET SETTLEMENT
That little bit of decorative cornice that overhangs the Woman’s Club fire lane cost the Bank of America. (Click to enlarge)
By JOHN T. WARD
What’s a couple of inches of historic airspace in downtown Red Bank worth?
Officials of the Woman’s Club of Red Bank aren’t saying, following an inadvertent encroachment on their historic Broad Street home by the new next-door neighbor, the Bank of America.
It seems that when the bank leased and renovated 170 Broad recently, it went too far with a decorative cornice it installed on the north wall of the building. The cornice overhangs the Woman’s Club property by several inches.
The club’s home is the former Anthony Reckless mansion, completed in 1874, and is on the National Register of Historic Places.
How the encroachment came to light is something redbankgreen was unable to learn. Nor could we confirm scuttlebutt that the club had gotten a whopping six-figure settlement from the bank over the mistake.
Christina Hardman, the club’s president, tells us the settlement is subject to a confidentiality agreement that prevents her from discussing it.
The club, however, did file documents with the Monmouth County Clerk regarding the property issue. An “encroachment agreement” allows the cornice to stay for the duration of the bank’s 20-year lease. It also calls for the bank to pay the club “ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration” spelled out in a document not attached.
Why all the secrecy? We couldn’t find out.
Here’s the encroachment agreement: woman’s club settlement
Jan 04, 2012 @ 21:23:55
It would be interesting to know all of the parties involved in the lawsuit as to why they needed to sign a confidentiality agreement.
Another interesting article is from app.com related to red bank’s non-profits. If it was such an issue why would Red Bank allow their former mayor to participate in a few of them?
https://www.app.com/article/20120104/NJNEWS/301040073/Red-Bank-mayor-seeks-legislative-help-getting-nonprofits-pay-up
Jan 04, 2012 @ 22:29:38
Here is the resolution (10-41) from the town authorizing Bank of America to do the work on their property. Probably explains the reason for the confidentiality agreement and the reason Red Bank and their taxpayers might want to make some changes.
https://www.redbanknj.org/clerk/read/9e5fc37b-fc2c-4590-a765-34ae351d432b
Jan 06, 2012 @ 15:24:42
George:
You misread the Resolution.
It clearly states the Zoning Board had already approved the construction bur prudently required they post a surety bond to make sure the job was performed properly.
The Surety Bond was provided by Hanover who appears on a US Treasury list of financially secure sureties.
The Resolution was to accept the surety bond as acceptable which is what should have been done.
There are many valid reasons why you might want to vote against a sitting Council Member but the Resolution isn’t one of them.
Since RB wasn’t a party to the problem between BOA $ the Womans Club the secrecy probably had nothing to do with RB.
I’m guessing that BOA made their payment contingent on it.
Probably out of concern that what was a sttraightfoward problem which was amicably worked out would get twisted by someone into some type of corrupt deal.
I wonder why?
Jan 06, 2012 @ 17:40:00
Kevin,
If it was a straight forward claim they would not ask for a confidentiality agreement. You are correct that this resolution pertains to bonding and escrows but the town would not have requested that without 1st approving the application which in the resolution states the Red Bank Zoning Board did. This application would most likely have been reviewed by the borough engineering firm. The settlement could have been made by several different parties, but if it was solely Bank of America, I doubt they would have required a confidentiality agreement as the mistake would not be part of their day to day business.