A rendering from the Denholtz proposal for a section of the train station redevelopment area. (Click to enlarge.)
By BRIAN DONOHUE
As the Red Bank Planning Board met to consider a relatively minor tweak to the potential redevelopment plan being written for the train station area last week, the topic quickly shifted – and remained for much of the night – on a much larger, complicated question: how the heck does the redevelopment process actually work?
(graphic by Brian Donohue. Click to enlarge)
It was a necessary detour in a meeting that began with Susan Favate, principal with borough planner BFJ Planning, telling board members and a dozen or so members of the public, “You may be wondering why we are all here.”
They were there, she explained, solely to consider whether six lots, mostly a NJ Transit rail yard and railroad right-of-ways, met the legal criteria to add them to the 13-acre district declared an area in need of redevelopment last year.
Denholtz, the developer which owns multiple properties in the areas and was chosen by NJ Transit to develop its parking lots, has proposed up to 400 apartments and a mix of green space for the zone. (see story below)
RED BANK: 400 APARTMENTS, GREEN PLAZA, NEW STREETS IN TRAIN STATION PLAN
The six additional lots had been inadvertently left out of the original studies and subsequent designation. In a long, complicated redevelopment process, the board’s vote on whether they fit the bill to be added was a minor tweak.
What was clear – partly through a reading of social media posts in the days before the meeting, was that some residents thought the board was meeting to consider the overall development plan, which is still being written. Board Member Wilson Beebe asked Favate for an explanation of the overall process so both the public and the board could get a sense of where the process stands.
Currently, Favate said, “It’s sort of the middle of the process, with certainly much more opportunity for public comment, and review, including review by the board.”
Favate broke down the steps needed before shovels go in the ground:
- BFJ Planners are working on a redevelopment plan which could be presented to the Planning Board in March. The redevelopment plan will essentially be a re-zoning of the area with specifications on height, setbacks, density and open space requirements. Board Chairman Dan Mancuso said there will be at least two public hearings before a vote.
- If the planning board approves it as consistent with the Borough Master Plan, the redevelopment plan would then go to the Borough Council for possible revisions. The council will then vote on whether to adopt the plan as a borough ordinance to be added to the zoning code.
- If the council approves the redevelopment plan, the developer would then submit to the Planning Board a site plan and and subdivision application for exactly what would be built. More public hearings and vote would then be taken on the site plan.
Resident Mary Ellen Mess, citing “confusion” among residents over the process, asked at what point the public can provide input on what might actually be built.
“I feel like the information that’s being presented to the public is quite confusing,” she said.
Planning Board attorney Mark Leckstein then described the process again, saying the board would hold multiple public hearings, first on the redevelopment plan, then on the site plan.
“None of that is what we’re talking about tonight and I don’t want to confuse anyone,” he said.
Mancuso encouraged residents to attend the public hearings – even volunteering to drive folks who need a ride to Borough Hall. “I love it when the public comes,” he said. “We’ll stay all night for you.”
As for what they were talking about – whether the six additional properties met the criteria to be added to the area in need of redevelopment?
The NJ Transit rail yard that was one of six properties considered for inclusion in the redevelopment area. (photo by Brian Donohue)
Favate presented a study that found the additional parcels fit those criteria. Her testimony was met with opposition from Irving Place resident Dan Riordan who argued the properties failed to meet several criteria, including being a detriment to the “safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community.”
“I don’t see how the parking lots at the train station are detrimental to the safety, health, morals or welfare of this community,” he said.
Favate countered by saying parking lots which create stormwater runoff, heat islands and are considered an obsolete land use, does in fact fit the criteria. And the project overall, she said, fits other legal criteria allowing for redevelopment in order to create high density development near transit hubs.
“If you can’t say this meets smart growth criteria, literally at the train station itself, there is nothing that would ever meet smart growth criteria,” she said.
Have a news tip or story idea? redbankgreen editor Brian Donohue may be reached via email at [email protected] or by calling or texting 848-331-8331. Do you value the news coverage provided by redbankgreen? Please become a financial supporter if you haven’t already. Click here to set your own level of monthly or annual contribution.
