Okay, good evening everyone. The Redbank Planning Board will now come to order. This it's not the 26th of March. What is it? The 11th. The 11th of March, 2026. Time is 7:05 p.m. This meeting is being held in accordance with the public laws of 1975 chapter 231. And adequate notice
of this meeting has been given to the Asbury Park Press and Two River Times hosted in the main lobby of this building as well as on the municipal website. Roll call please. Mayor Portman absent. Shauna Ebanks present. Christina Bonitakus.
Damuso. Lewis Dementoto. Barbara Boz absent. Megan Massie >> here. Wilson BBE Hernandez, Frederick Stone absent, and Brian Parnean. Thank you. >> The mayor gets a hard pass since it's
his birthday once a year. Uh we've got a couple of administrative matters as we still wait for our planner. We have the regular meeting minutes of February 11th. Does anyone have any additions or changes?
If not, does someone would someone like to approve the minutes? >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed or abstensions? I'm not
voting. >> I was I was >> I think I was here, but I couldn't vote on the application. Right. Okay. Then we have the resolution for 183 Doctor's James Parker Boulevard, block 90, lot 1201. Does anyone have any
additions or changes to the resolution, which is incredibly lofty? I know we talked a lot that night, but wow. >> Yes, it really is. Uh, does anyone have a motion? >> And a second. >> Second.
>> All in favor? I will abstain as I did not vote on that application. Um, we have the public hearing for 2628 Shrewsbury Avenue. It's the rehab plan presentation
by our planner BFJ Planning and Susan is still not here. So, everybody just, you know, where do you go? >> We have an item to discuss on an extension of approval. Mark's going to talk about it. Just turn on mic.
So, the garden at Redbank uh was a cannabis use that was approved by the board for site plan approval back on back in 2024. And essentially, >> this is the old Exxon station, the bridge, >> right? Uh they are currently in
litigation with the burrow because the burrow only had a certain number of licenses to give out. I think they knew when they came before the board that there was no license available. Nevertheless, they proceeded. They got the site plan approval. They are now
coming to us and saying that they would like an extension of that approval. The approval itself doesn't expire, but they have a protection against any zoning changes. This was a completely variancefree application and as long as the council doesn't change anything
about the ordinance, they can build on this into perpetuity. but they're asking for an extension on the protections that would be given to them from such a change. Asking for a one-year extension. Um their validation for that is that
they say they are diligently pursuing all necessary approvals and what the approval that they're pursuing is the ability to operate a cannabis use at the site in which they are suing the burough. I leave this to the board whether you
want to grant that extension or not based upon that argument. Um they could theoretically build the building without the can cannabis use inside of it. It again it's a variance-free application. So nothing's preventing them from
building the structure that they want to build except for the fact that they can't get a license which they knew they couldn't get in the first place and they're suing the town for. So I personally don't have an objection to granting the extension. I don't think it hurts anything, but at the same time I
could totally understand that the board wouldn't buy the argument that they're being held up from building the building. >> Well, they're you're right. They're not being held up from building the building. and and if you know you sue the Burough of Red Bank and cost the taxpayers money for said lawsuit, I'm
not a fan of extensions in those situations. >> It shouldn't be a reason that you either grant or deny the >> Yeah, that I had a feeling you were going to say something >> the extension. >> Well, that being said, um if someone
wants to make a motion uh to grant an extension, you're welcome to. Otherwise, I will make a motion to deny if no one makes a motion to approve. >> This is the Exxon gas station at the bridge, which everyone agrees that if if
built would be a tremendous improvement from what's currently there. >> So, again, it's the Ford's decision. However, go ahead. >> Burrow has no more license and we're not extend anymore license. So,
>> but could it be that we >> forces us to? If the court >> Yeah, if the court forces us to, but could it be that we deny the extension because of I'm just asking legally what's in our legal purview. Can we deny it because we have no more license nor >> I believe you could for the reason I
said that they're not being prevented from building the building. >> Right. the the the holdup that is causing the holdup is the is that they are diligently suing the burrow to create a license which the bureau has told them that they're not going to create which is different than they need
like D approval or they need any of those type of approvals which are normally the type of approvals that you hear in these cases. >> Did they get um NJ dot approval? I don't know >> as they're on route 35.
>> I have a I do not know the answer to that. This does not say this. Uh I have a feeling and I'm reading between the lines here that they haven't pursued anything until they know that they can get the license from the town because why invest the money in anything if they
don't get the license. >> That's correct. Because they're not even through resolution compliance. Um because once they realized they weren't going to get the license, they halted everything. >> Right. >> That's what I would imagine. >> Escrow replenishment.
>> I would I would recommend that if the board is inclined to deny this application that you give Mr. Jenkins, who wrote this letter, an opportunity that the board is inclined to deny the request. This is not an application's request. and give him an opportunity to
come before the board and put on a case as to why it should be granted rather than us just deny it. That would be my recommendation. If you're inclined, >> I think that's fine. If he wants to come and and pitch it, that's fine with me. >> If you're inclined to grant it, however, then there's no need for that and I feel
comfortable with you doing that today. It's a variance prelication building and so they have the approval for correct >> unless the burrow changes the zoning ordinances and creates new setbacks or whatever the case may >> the license were to become available like one of the current facilities were
to go out business are they next in line >> I don't know they are next in line so the burrow's local cannabis board did grant them the license and they are on the waiting should an application become
available. >> So in that instance, they would be able to build the building unless the >> Yes, they're able to build the building now. >> They'd be they'd be they'd be allowed to operate there with a license. Yeah. >> Yes. >> I'm fine with him coming in and and
selling his pitch if he wants to. >> Either that or I'll make a motion to deny it. >> Yeah. I was just say it um if they were to build in absence of a license, they would have to come to this board for any change of view. Correct. If they proceeded
>> 100%. >> But but but there's nothing prohibiting them as far as I can tell with them building the Dell of a building that they were approved to build. >> And there's no um timeline for response that we're obligated to as far as that
letter. >> No. I if if listen, if you're going to deny this, if you're inclined to deny it or you're thinking about denying it, then you should give Mr. Jenkins an opportunity to come before the board and present his case. They were uh cognizant of that that
there were no licenses, right? When >> Yes. Right. >> Did they say that or did they pretend that they didn't know when they knew? >> A few times in the hearing, we did mention that we had no more license. they decided to continue to pursue.
>> I remember being puzzled about >> but it was a variance free application that that was >> and are they up against a deadline? They're creating their own >> they're not and so they're up against a deadline and as far as zoning protection is concerned because you're protected from any changes in the zoning ordinance
uh for a period of two years. >> Okay. and as long as but again if the council doesn't change the zoning ordinances then it's forever until the zoning ordinance changes. So they're just asking I'm sure what it is is that they are nervous that if the timeline
expires the easy way for uh the burough to deal with it is to change the zoning they would have a building uh to to build and they'd have to come back here. Um I'm sure that's part of their thought process. Again I just question whether this
cannabis. >> Well, we don't decide the we don't decide the use. >> So, I would I would stay away from that. It is a permitted use on the site. >> Yes. Okay. >> So, I to come in.
>> Yeah. I make >> All right. So, so there's not going to be any motion tonight. Then we're gonna uh Shauna will call Mr. Jenkins. They will they will tell she will tell him that he should appear at the next hearing if he wishes to make his case. >> Okay, >> better be a good one. >> Okay,
>> Susan, welcome back. So, as I was saying before, this is 2628 Shrewsbury Avenue rehabilitation plan. It's Susan Favate from BFJ Planning as our planner and she's here to tell us all about this site. >> Seems like Susan's here every single meeting.
>> Thank you. >> It's all you. Um, thank you board. Uh, I have a Is it easy for me to share, Shauna? >> Yeah. >> Okay, I'm going to share the presentation. It's about 15 slides or so, so not too long. Can everybody hear?
>> Okay, that's good. Okay, it's coming up. I can see it on my screen. There we go. Let me All right, full screen coming up. So, as the chairman said, this is uh
2628 Shrewsbury Avenue in rehabilitation plan. You all have previously had experience with a redevelopment plan. Same statute, which I'll go through, but slightly different ramifications uh for rehab versus redevelopment. Um but this is a a proposal that uh came from the
property owner. Um and under the state law there's they're empowered to um ask for a rehabilitation plan. So the council has empowered you as a board to undertake this plan. Um and I'll take you through some of the key elements. So we'll start with just kind of the
background how we got here, what the process is for I say redevelopment but it's actually rehab but it's still under the redevelopment law. Um planning context and goals. how this how this relates to your master plan and other documents. Um and then I'll take you through the parameters of the plan. For
those of you I think all of you were here um except Megan for the um train station redevelopment plan. This is a lot simpler. It's a much smaller site. Um there's sort of two buildings. Um it's a much different scale than that project. So a little bit simpler in that
regard. Just a refresher on the uh local redevelopment and housing law, the LRHL. This is what rehab falls under like redevelopment. Um and similar to the re redevelopment tool, it does give municipalities some flexibility uh in terms of the zoning tools uh and
financial tools that are available to them to facilitate revitalization of specific sites uh as long as they meet uh certain criteria or so designated. Um but differently and unlike a redevelopment designation, rehab is a bit of a smaller scale. It does not provide for some of those long-term
financial benefits like pilots. So pilots are not on the table here. Um the bureau is not empowered to give them under rehabilitation nor are they empowered to use eminent domain as a tool. Um but otherwise it's very similar to the redevelopment tool and process.
Um with the exception of this particular uh application or proposal um did not require a separate designation. Uh if you remember in the redevelopment process first you have to go through the area in need of redevelopment process and study and designation. Um, this was simply added to the burough's existing
rehabilitation area. That's been in place since 2017. So, all of that has already been done in terms of deciding that this property um it makes sense to include in the rehabilitation area. There was no new designation required to get to this point. So, we basically go straight uh to a rehabilitation plan
which like a redevelopment plan sort of acts in the place of zoning. Um it sort of sets the the parameters for uses, design elements. Um gets into a lot more detail than traditional zoning in terms of of design, uh community amenities,
public improvements, etc. Um so it's a good tool for the borrower to use um to have in its its sort of toolbox. So um planning context, this is I think you're all fairly familiar with the site. It's on Shrewsbury Avenue um just before the the bridge uh borders the Swimming
River. It's a waterfront property. Um, and you can see on the image to the right, um, in orange is the existing rehabilitation area. Uh, again, it's been in place for for, you know, since 2017. It covers most of the downtown
area. Um, you know, some carveouts. Uh, and this site is in blue, as you can see, maybe barely. Um, kind of on the edge of that rehab area, but but included within the rehabilitation area. Okay. So, a little bit of context on the site in particular. It's actually two
parcels. Um, it's block 39, lots 30 and 31. Um, one of the parcels, I think it's 30. Um, one of the two is the narrow one, which is essentially the driveway to the site. The other parcel is is the bulk of the 1.275 acre site. So, just
over one and a quarter acre, again along Shrewsbury Avenue, bordered by Shrewsbury, the New Jersey Transit Tracks, and the Swimming Rivers just south of the Marina area. Um, it's mostly used currently as a parking lot, surface parking lot. Um, so it is nearly
100% impervious paved. Uh, currently actually sits a little bit down a hill. If you're familiar, you can kind of see and look down. Um, there are two curb cuts on Shrewsbury Avenue into the site. There's a one-way circulation system and then there is also pedestrian access down to the site via a staircase because
of that grade change that occurs. Um, a portion of the site is within a flood plane designated by FEMA. uh and there are some wetlands associated with the river as well. So, this does require D approval. I believe that they're already involved uh with the applicant for this particular development. It's currently
within the waterfront development WD district. Um so, as you'll see, there are some standards and provisions of that district that will remain. Um but then we've we've looked at some tailored uh provisions here in the rehabilitation plan that are related to this particular development.
Okay. So what the developer has proposed is a two building uh complex uh all condominiums 40 total units. Uh again in those two buildings one sort of uh faces and and overlooks the swimming river. The other one is parallel to that and um
more overlooks Shrewsbury Avenue. Uh there's a proposed one single curbcut driveway down into the site uh to reach parking which is proposed underneath the building. Um, so there's a total of of 20 complex uh duplex condos. Um, it's
four stories over the parking. Um, and there are six six affordable units which represents a 15% set aside which are proposed to be located on the site. Um, and then another aspect of this uh public amenity here is that there would be proposed uh or provided as part of
this development a public walkway 10- foot wide public walkway along the extent of the site that borders the swimming river. So that would be a new public resource u available along the river. Okay. So as part of this process like I
think the bureau does with most of its redevelopment type um processes um there was a community meeting uh a public meeting was held uh in the senior center in December. Um there were about 40 folks who came that night um and I think we're you know coming and open and
willing to listen. Um and I think there was you know a mix of support as you can imagine but um I think four kind of key concerns that um that were raised at that meeting. The first is really about the aesthetics, the design, the architecture of the building uh whether that is the material of the building
just kind of how it looks um how the parking is screened. Uh it is within a structure, it is within the building itself. So there was some concern to make sure that that was screened appropriately uh from neighboring properties. Uh and then the views to and from the river as well were of concern.
Um as is often the case, traffic was a concern. This is a tough intersection um nearby on Shrewsbury. Um the the multiple curb cuts into the site currently don't help that. Um so we talked at that meeting about how actually the consolidation of the curb cuts into one uh could actually improve
things a bit uh from a traffic standpoint, but there was also concern that it's right next to the New Jersey Transit Rail Line. uh people wanted to make sure that particularly during construction there are no impacts uh to rail service and then sustainability I think there was a lot there were a lot of folks who really were interested and
wanted to see green building green infrastructure um the use of native native plantings non-invasive plantings along the the walkway in particular um and then connected with that the open space and public realm you know just a lot of concern to make sure that this walkway truly feels public that it is
welcoming that it is very clear that it is not a private resource for the the residents, but it's very much open to all Burough residents. Um, and then also a desire to improve the sidewalk along Shrewsbury from what currently exists. So, all of those uh those comments and
that feedback were taken uh into this this plan and there were some changes that the applicant made to the design as a result of these comments and they were all incorporated within the parameters of the plan. So contents of the re rehabilitation plan. Um first there's a
description of the area both in terms of a map and then the block and lot um overview of the process. The goals and and relationship to local objectives. The goals are specific to this rehabilitation plan and this site. Uh they have been developed particularly to this this particular proposal. Um, and
then we go through all of the different development parameters uh in terms of the overall uses, design, bulk and lot uh bulk and uh um bulk and I'm I'm blanking bulk standards um and parking
and all of those aspects of development. Um there is a requirement in the state statute um of of plan consistency review. You have to look at how it relates to your own master plan, the county master plan as well as your neighboring community master plans. Um there's a section on implementation,
what happens next? Um basically the burough council's role uh and then compliance with existing bureau statutes uh regulations and then definitions that are particular to this rehabilitation plan. So in terms of the goals, um as I said,
these are specific to this rehabilitation plan. You'll see that there's a lot of overlap with the your own master plan, the burough wide master plan. So, the first one really is about diversity of housing, providing new uh and expanded housing types, both both market rate and affordable. Um, I think
that's very much in keeping with the burough's master plan. Um, the master plan for the burough, as you recall, does talk a lot about the Shrewsbury Avenue corridor. uh mostly in the neighborhood business zone which is not in this zone but we do think that there is a connection uh about strengthening
the overall Shrewsbury Avenue corridor both through uh public realm and pedestrian improvements but also bringing in new residents who can support that local business district. Um another goal is about uh expansion of public access to the swimming river. Um
that is certainly a long-held goal by the bureau uh in its master plan and previous master plans as well. Another goal speaks to reducing the amount of impervious coverage. Uh as I mentioned, this is a nearly 100% impervious site. So despite it being proposed for new
development, it actually will result in slight and somewhat reduction of impervious coverage. So there'll be a little bit more green on this site actually as a result of this development. So that is in keeping with the goal uh of reducing impervious coverage, improving storm water management, reducing that heat island
effect um that has been identified for the burrow. The next goal speaks to architecture that is appropriately scaled, that is appropriately designed and uses the materials and uh and and overall design and finishes that speak to what the burough already has in terms of its
local vernacular and context. Um next goal is about adequate utilities, water, sewer, electric, storm water and gas um to to ensure that that is being uh that is serving the development and it's being done effectively and sustainably as well. And then lastly, the final goal
uh is about, you know, mitigating environmental impacts by incorporating sustainable and green elements into uh into your building and design infrastructure. Okay. So, just to get into the details of this rehab plan, um it's pretty
simple in terms of the permitted uses. There's only really one category of principal peritt permitted uses. It's multif family, uh which includes this condo um proposal. So multif family dwellings both market rate and affordable low and moderate income units and then as accessory to those um the
waterfront walkway is the key accessory use along the swimming river but also anything else that is generally seen as you know accessory to a multif family residential use but fairly straightforward on the uses in terms of the bulk requirements. Um as I said some
of these actually don't change from the waterfront development district but we're replicating those here. So minimum lot area is is one that doesn't change. It's 45,000 square ft. That's what exists now. Minimum lot frontage 140 ft. Density is 40 units or 35 units to the
acre, whichever is more. Gloria ratio 2.5. Maximum lot coverage which actually uh the way the bureau defines it as building coverage here. So that's 65% and then impervious coverage would be 80% maximum. Um minimum unoccupied open
space again not a change from the WD district 20%. Um and maximum building height uh five stories 60 feet which is um proposed in this plan to be defined slightly differently than the bureau defines it um pretty similar but some slight differences. Um so five stories
60 ft and then in terms of setbacks some of these uh the rear is the same as the WD 25 ft. The front yard setback is 15t off off the street. um side smaller side setback is three feet and the combined is 12. So a lot of that really is being
dictated by the nature of this site uh as well as the proposed development. Parking ratios are 1.5 per unit which I think is um consistent and comparable with an area that is you know not necessarily to not right at a train
station but it is certainly walkable to the train station in the downtown. Um and some of that is being achieved on this fairly small site by the use of tandem parking. Um assigned parking. Um these are going to be all for the residents. So they are going to be people who are used to coming into these
spots dayto-day. Uh and they are going to be coordinating um the use of that that tandem and reserve parking. There's a requirement for bicycle parking um per unit and that needs to be uh secured in door storage. the EV electric vehicle parking standards are the same uh as the
bureau's existing requirements. And then we we also looked at loading areas just to make sure that there's enough room in here to uh to maneuver in terms of move in, move out, uh deliveries, um parcel drop off, passenger pickup, Uber, that type of thing, just to make sure that
there is that that circulation. um and in particular that you can accommodate a 30-foot box truck which is similar or or um equivalent to what you would typically see in a residential type of a development. Okay. So the design standards I'm not
going to go through in in great detail. Um some of them are similar to what was the train station but it's clearly a different site, different context. So, we do get into ways to mitigate uh the massing of buildings. Um you know, break up the facades, articulate the buildings. We talk about balconies and
how far they can extend, things like that. Um building materials, red brick, it's called out as as a preference uh at least for a good portion of this building. Um we speak to signage and in fact, there's a proposal here uh to incorporate a mural into this building
uh that would be visible from the Shrewbury um entrance into the burrow. um and landscaping, screening, fencing walls and lighting. Um in terms of lighting, things like dark sky compliance. Um there are uh regulations on how high the retaining walls can be,
required buffering areas between the site and adjacent properties. There are sustainable and green design provisions. Um and then there are also detailed provisions for the waterfront walkway itself in terms of uh minimum width. uh it needs to be reached by a sidewalk
that is fully accessible from Shrewsbury uh five foot minimum. Um there are uh proposals to improve the existing sidewalk on Shrewsbury. Um and then there are also requirements for plantings along um both that sidewalk and the public walkway and then lastly
utilities and mechanicals some of the technical standards there. So other requirements that will come into play particularly when it comes to you for site plan approval um at the time of site plan they will need to submit detailed uh elevations renderings. You are authorized to ask
for a materials board if you really want to see how those materials uh look and feel. Um stormwater management plan will be compliant with the burough standards. There is this required 40 uh 15% affordable housing set aside has to be all on site. no inloo payments allowed.
Uh and there are provisions for uh construction and phasing. Uh ensuring that the there are no impacts to uh rail infrastructure. That was something that came up in the workshop. Um and then we talk about property encroachments. There are actually some existing encroachments onto this property from the neighboring
property. So those are going to need to be removed as part of this development. And then um potential off-site improvements. Okay. So I think this is last slide actually. Um, I ran through it. I'm happy to take questions from the board as well as the public. Um, just wanted
to give you a sense of what happens next in terms of implementation. Um, if you all are satisfied with this plan, um, tonight or at a later date, you your step would be to make a recommendation to the burough council that they adopt this rehabilitation plan. Um, they're the the body that actually adopts the
plan. Once the plan is in place, similar to a redevelopment plan, it does become the zoning for the area. it's it's imposed on this site and that governs the future development of the site. Um at that point the burough council will um consider designation of uh
redeveloper for this property likely the existing property owner uh and they will work with that owner to uh develop a detailed redeveloper agreement that um you know really gets into a lot of those details on um not so much financing here because pilots are not an aspect here
but um just the the expectations of that developer uh for the bureau. um while that's being done um or they'll be preparing their site plan application to you and then ultimately will come before you just like any site plan application does. Um and so that is when you will uh
you will be somewhat bound by this plan in the sense that they will likely come in with a variance-free application. That's the sort of the point of doing this plan is that you're trying to capture a lot of the the constraints of this site in the plan. Um so it's not anticipated that they would need any relief. There are provisions for that if
they do end up needing relief. Um, but when they come to you, you will really be able to dig into those details on design in particular, and how that public space functions, the sidewalks, etc. So, it's it's not like you have to rubber stamp it. You definitely will have some input on that. The public will have additional opportunity to weigh in
on that site plan. I spoke to the relief possibility. um if they need some minor um relief on on bulk standards, uh anything in terms of of parking, um the typical planning board bulk standards, those can be granted by you. Um but
anything else generally needs uh a plan amendment or um or another body would would uh would would look at that potential relief. Um and as I said, there'll be additional opportunity for public review. Public review will be part of the burough council's actions as well. all that they do is in their
public meetings as is typical with with their uh their work. So with that, um I'm going to stop sharing. Um I have the plan ready to look at if folks have questions, comments, concerns from the board first, perhaps.
>> Does anyone from the board have any questions for Susan about the plan? >> Go ahead. >> Thanks. Um this is a process of um negotiation between the bureau uh and the developer
uh and us. C can you describe a little bit about the conversations uh in the meetings that have occurred with the developer in terms of negotiating these details, what some of the concessions were, what some of the
sticking points were. Um I' I' I'd like a appreciate a sense of of that. >> Well, I mean, in all honesty, it's a fairly fairly straightforward process. Um they initially came in with the proposal. Um they kind of laid out what
they needed. There were some conversations about the details of that. Um we we kind of pushed back a little bit on some of the design. Um I know there were concerns raised at the public meeting about the size of the mural that was originally proposed. It was it was
really significant and so they came down on that. Um they've made some some minor changes in design. There was also discussion about um potentially extending the walkway or connecting it uh with the walkway over the bridge. Uh and they did explore that with the neighboring property owner. It's not
really possible based on um the property lines and particularly the topography makes it really difficult. Um so it was really kind of those details. Um, I don't think that they were major, I would say, concessions because they came in with a fairly clean project, uh, in
terms of what they needed. Sean, I don't know if you had any >> Yeah. >> Just to add it, we talked a lot, um, about the walkway leading from the street >> to the um to the waterfront. That was a
lot of back and forth with the developer on how the public can access it without feeling like they're encroaching into a private development, making it feel like they're welcome. So, um there was a big
redesign about that um and how wide the um that walkway should be um and the landscaping that goes along there. There was also a lot of conversation about um
the access points to the underground um the garage um and how that was going to be handled when it comes to delivery, moving trucks, um taxi pickup, things like
that. Um, also we talked a lot about the um the courtyard space um and the materials used there for the courtyard space. Um, a lot of the concession was
making it um from concrete to impous um making it more um sustainable. Um, same thing with the building material and and ways that
we can in involve green roofs, more um more environmentally friendly um aspects. So, we there was a lot of talks about that and negotiations about what the burrow was looking for when it comes to um comes to this project. Um and uh
even uh one concession was moving I guess the entrance that was close to the train tracks >> itself and to move it on the opposite end giving us more front yard green um space >> um that was >> the signage too. >> Yes. And the sign
>> initially they had proposed a blade sign you know that extends perpendicular uh and that was requested to be changed because I think that's not really in keeping with the burough's regulations. Mhm. >> So, they made some tweaks on their proposed signage and I think they shrunk it down a bit as well. >> Yeah. >> But I think the main focus was making
sure that the walk the path to the um water was welcoming to anyone that walks off that street that it's not just for the residents that live there, but it's all for the public. Um that that was our
main focus really is that if they the the developer did come in originally with making that a public access and wanting to develop that space for us um for the public, but we had to still tweak it to make sure that
it accommodated our residents that walk to that area. Uh is there is um is there anything that we would have desired
uh that we determined wasn't practicable and was within the developers uh perview to say no we can't we can't go there. It's not it's not within you know our plan. The only one that comes to mind is
the potential connection to existing riverfront walkways uh or pathways and and it really wasn't feasible. They did look at it. So, it wasn't like they said just said we're not going to do it. They they said it's just not possible. Um I nothing else jumps out. >> I mean the afford I actually have to
touch on this. The affordable housing they did offer to put the units off site and that was we were very adamant that all units had to be on the site. we were no longer accepting applications where developers place off-site units um >> very early on.
>> Yeah. And that I guess the one thing that it was the hard was the increasing in the percentage of um affordable units we would have liked them to go up to 20%. Um but because of the constraints
of the property um with the DP permitting and everything like that, it it financially it just wouldn't have worked for them to increase that number to 20%. But they did meet what our um our
sliding scale set aside for affordable housing would be. So they're not going under, they're going they're meeting it. >> Okay. wondering what the conversation was in regards to safety since it's so close to the train tracks. It just makes me anything where anybody can walk onto
that makes me nervous. Wondering if residents flag or if that's like something that um that was considered or thought. >> Yeah, it was discussed with them that both during construction and once this is open that they'll need to have provisions and coordinate with New
Jersey Transit just to make sure that there is not access, you know, from this building or this site. um to the tracks uh and then also obviously during construction that we're we're mitigating any any construction impact on on the service. But that's definitely um been discussed with them and it's a provision
of the plan that that coordination needs to be ongoing and I think that'll also be part of the redeveloper agreement that the burough council probably undertakes. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else from the board have any questions? >> Um Susan, can you talk a little bit? But
I know we mentioned the green roof which is generally a burrowwide obligation. We kept it here but it sounded like we open an alternative for a cool roof if that's not feasible. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Um there is provision
that um you know you do need to you have an existing green roof uh regulation in your code. Um but if that's not feasible given that this is a fairly small site uh and it may not be feasible with the particular buildings that there is an option to use the cool roof approach in
combination with the landscaping on the site. So I think also because this is an existing 100% nearly 100% impervious coverage lot um it's going to be greener by fault defact deacto green um and so
that they could achieve some of those same goals through some of the on-site landscaping in combination with a green roof or cool roof type approach. >> I have a couple questions. Are the um pergola structures on the roof are they
allowed to exceed the 60 ft height requirement? >> Let me confirm that. That's why I have the plan open. Um >> because that would fall under the definitions. Sorry, I got to reopen it.
Of course, this is when the computer decides not to work. Okay. Getting there. I think just another comment which um I think I mean speaking for myself I don't actually you don't really notice
this site right now because there's nothing on it. >> Mhm. But it's quite a prominent site if you were to build a building like this as a sort of gateway welcoming kind of confronting architecture as you're
coming in Mammoth County 10 over the uh Shrewsbury River or Swimming River into town. Just a comment for the board like this is just as we're considering this and the the building and what's being proposed from a massing standpoint and everything.
>> Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. It's an important site and I think that's why when it comes to you for site plan, you will have input and opportunity to weigh in on that design. I think because it is a little bit down, for lack of a better word, in a hole, um it does actually allow you to think about a building that maybe might not be
so uh visually um apparent as otherwise it would be if it were flat site. So, it gives you actually a little bit of um of room there. Um I do have an answer for you on the pergolas. So um the definition that is particular to this rehabilitation plan it makes clear that
um structures semi-permanent structures like pergulas specifically mentioned and gazeos are not considered a story unless they occupy more than 20% of the roof area. Uh and then those elements are capped at 12 feet. So um they I think they're not considered part of the
overall height um because they're not a story but they are no more than 12 feet on top of that roof. So you could go 72 feet to the top of the pergola >> in theory. >> Five story. Okay. >> Yeah. But it's limited in scale at the
top of that roof to no more than 20%. So you're not talking about the whole >> to no more than 20% of the roof area. >> Of the roof area. >> Okay. >> And are the areas behind the pergola elevator shafts? >> Yes. And those um Thank you, Dan. Those
may extend 15 feet in height um above the roof. So, >> hi. >> I just have a couple questions. Uh with the affordable housing, is there a way that we could encourage up to 20% just
because there are a few developers in town that are meeting the 20% requirement and wondering as a bargaining chip if we'd be open for like a density bonus if they meet the 20% or
not get the 20% like real big A affordable housing but provide like workforce housing or something. I know the developer is wanting to make the most >> out of it, but if there's a way that they can win with more units and then there's more opportunity for a diversity
of housing, >> I think it's limited here because I don't think that they actually can get more units on the site >> more than they already have because you can't really park it. And so then to have a density bonus, I think may not be that attractive for them, okay? Because it may not be feasible. Um, I mean
there's certainly the the 15% is a minimum. So I think the bureau could continue to encourage that and work with them if there's a way for them to increase that set aside. Um, but I don't know that a density bonus is going to be that effective in this particular case. It usually would be, but I think they're
so limited on the >> size. Okay. Um, and then I just saw in E1 of the rehab plan, can we change the language to instead of encouraging green infrastructure or green um I didn't like
totally write it down, but can it be required? I'm not sure if we can make that change. >> Do anything you want to do. >> Oh, >> well, you know, it says sorry. By the way, Megan, thank you for blowing Facebook up by mentioning density.
>> You're welcome. >> I can't wait to get home and read all the comments. >> Yeah, I already saw the faces, but it's okay. >> But we've had this conversation before. This is the board's plan. So, if the board wants to put whatever language it wants into the plan, it can do. So, ultimately, the burrow would be the one
adopting it. But it's if the burrow if the board is recommending this and writing this plan, which which they are, it can be whatever language you want. And this is the same thing we had when we were dealing with the last re redevelopment plan. This is not a redevelopment plan, it's a rehabilitation, but it's the same principle. But >> it's also interesting. We're going to
have another discussion of should versus shall because the uh don't worry it won't be lengthy. The existing language actually says sustainable green site and building design methods shall be incorporated to the maximum extent pro practicable and will be required in the
future redeveloper agreement. So um >> there was no encouraged There's encourage somewhere. >> There's encourage later, I think, where it gets to the specific methods. >> Okay. >> Um, so it talks about green storm water infrastructure, green roofs, uh, high
energy appliances, LED lighting, um, all of those things. It says are encouraged. So, I read that as and we're welcome to. It's like, as I said, >> I don't like if the if it's something the board specifically wants, then it shouldn't use the word encouraged. Yeah. Because encouraged >> does
>> encourage appears nine times. Yeah. So though encourage should not be there. >> The if it's these are because encouraged means okay. Thank you for encouraging us but we're not going to do it. >> So I think maybe >> the same discussion we had discuss >> because I think it's similar language.
>> Oh yeah. Yeah. You weren't allowed to. That's right. You weren't involved in that. That's true. >> You're consistent. Um so I think maybe one approach could be where we say you know we have this long list of tools that could get you there. um you know solar ready construction and all these different strategies and it just says
are encouraged. Um maybe we replace that with shall be considered uh as part of that report. >> Shall be considered is the same thing as encouraged. >> The way the way you required >> if this is the list of type of things that you are encouraging right >> then it should be you shall do this
using one of these methods. >> Okay. >> Is that better? >> Yes. I'm I'm just trying to not require them to use any one because we don't know what's most feasible. >> So So you give them so give them a list but say you shall do this using one of these methods. >> They encourage them to come in and wow
us but that's the only encouragement there should be. >> Okay, that's not a difficult change to make. >> And then I was also going to say just to flag potentially the issue. I I think sometimes with new developments they
need to have a 25 foot setback from the active rail line. I don't know if that exists right now or not. >> Um and then >> it should I looked at a map. I was looking at that corner unit and that they can touch the sidewalk but the train stations further away
>> and I bet you saying like the active tracks. >> I meant the track. Yeah, it it looks >> it might be 25 ft, but that that's something it's it's close, but >> and I don't know if this is more for site plan approval, but once with like
window selection, I think we have to be very like required um >> the noise attenuation >> the noise because I mean that is a very dangerous crossing as is and they are blowing that horn >> a lot. >> Yes,
>> I know all about it. Yeah. Yep. My house ear shot of four great crossings from my bedroom window. >> Yeah. It's It's the honking the regular >> Oh my god. Yeah. >> Back and forth. >> I'm like, "What are they doing? It's 3:30 in the morning. Put the trains to bed."
>> They can't. They are probably putting the trains to bed. >> Yeah, but don't put them to bed by my house, >> please. >> Two more things. >> Sure. >> Um just for the board. Uh what do you guys think about maybe because 1.4 ratio
for parking >> right there with you. I'm right >> more like a suburban feel. >> Can we get closer to like one point >> two? >> Maybe one. I would love one, but I am just one person. >> Can Can one be the bonus if they do 20%
affordable housing? >> Whoa. >> Half a space requirement if you do 20%. >> Or workforce housing. Yeah, I do the mix of the workforce housing >> because it's still at a moderate. >> What would be the lowest ratio that you all would feel comfortable with? You
said 1.2, 1.1. >> Oh, I would always say one because I mean you're in a fivem minutee walk to the transition. >> So maybe we can say uh as a bonus for increasing the affordable housing up to 20%. um they could they could provide one space per unit
>> and then it's kind of that's a win-win flexible for them. >> Yeah. >> I'm not particularly comfortable with that myself, but >> just out of curiosity, what is the reason for having park requirements for parking >> having requirements at all?
>> Yeah. >> Well, um I guess from the mun municipal perspective, lots of folks are doing away with them. lots of towns and and cities um from the developer perspective they tend to know their market and they they know what's they think is going to
sell. So they are sort of loathed to not provide any parking. Um it becomes kind of a negotiation. That's the um minimum I think actually. Let me let me just confirm that it's it's the requirement. So it's the
the minimum requirement. So I think we can come down a little bit if there's some flexibility. >> I think 1.2 if they increase the affordable housing would be encouraged. Well, I mean the it's it's sort of six one half dozen the other. The minimum came from them. So, it's basically what
they feel they're going to provide. Uh it's not something that the bureau kind of imposed on them. They they've already kind of designed this out. >> Uh Susan, how does that compare to the rest of the WD, the 1.4? >> It's a good question, Christina. You're
gonna stump me on that. I don't have the zoning up. I'd have to confirm that. >> I think it all depends on the use >> and the bedroom mix. I think >> I can pull it really quickly. >> Okay. Any Megan, you had one other I think. Oh. Uh,
>> this was similar to Brian, but on the other side of for Shrewsbury because I think the way that the architecture and I think this is more for site plan, but um I think it it looks really nice and interesting on the riverside. I'm just wondering if we could have that same
interesting facade. Um I don't know how. Uh I don't have any suggestions, but something that like >> looks good. >> There we go. Looks good. >> How's that? How's that for encouragement? >> Well, except except think about this. The brick facade on that on that street
side reflects the galleria >> architecture. >> So, I think it's a little uh I think that's a little um I I think what they're doing has some positive benefit from a from a
style point of view. Even even if it's just red brick with windows. >> Yeah. That's what is across the street. >> Yeah. >> And during site plan, I wouldn't mind seeing a rendering >> from the other side of the bridge with
the galleria up above. >> So, we can see how this building will look coming across the bridge, which is going to be a different It's a long view. >> Yeah. So the building's not going to look as imposing from the other side of the river, but to see how it blends in
with the Galleria, which is an important view of Redbank for people coming into town from the west, >> I think that render would would would go a long way. >> So >> be strongly encouraged. So just to go to the parking compared um for the use for
multif family three bedrooms or more is 2.5 per dwelling unit and um anything under uh two bedroom one and two bedroom it's two spaces per dwelling unit. So this is actually a bit more
efficient, but certainly there's I don't see a harm in providing some flexibility to go lower. If it's not feasible at all for them, then they're just going to provide the minimum. Um, but there's a little bit of give and take there. I also just wanted to make the point because I am
also in the WD zoning right now. Um, and I know that there were some public concerns about the building height. So the existing regulation under the waterfront development district is five stories. um and 50 ft. So, uh slightly
this would provide for slightly more height in terms of number of feet, but the same number of stories. So, it's not a huge change. And I think particularly since this site, as I said, is kind of sloped so far downward. You're not talking about something that's up on a hill or >> How tall is the the
eastern most build, the building up top? Same height. M >> because I that's what I thought was that the back building because it slopes down that would be at 60 feet. So I think there's a very slight differential >> up front. >> Yeah, >> that was my understanding.
>> They're not far off but one is the one I think on the river side is slightly lower. Right. >> Okay. >> I would say 12 feet is quite generous for a pergola and a roof. Well, if you're going to have an elevator tower, you're 10 12 feet
anyway, right? So, >> may actually provide some screening for that. >> Yeah, that's true. Um, the one other thing, uh, and we we incorporated this on the train station redevelopment is adding the word meaningful to the
building massing design administration articulation where it says building facade should be less than 100 ft. When longer than 100 ft, they shall incorporate facade articulation. We added meaningful facade articulation >> just to give us some teeth. >> Yep. >> When we're reviewing the architecture
>> and th those elevator towers up top, um rather than paint them white where they're going to stand out more visually, Disney uses a lot of go away blue on their buildings, hoping that they will blend into the sky when you look at them.
Um, what's that new ride? >> Guardians of the Galaxy in Epcot. You look at that building. It very much blends into the clouds. I would rather see some kind of go away blue instead of white on those towers. I think visually
coming over the bridge would look a little bit better. >> Yeah. >> Or gray. Someone wants to launch a study. >> It's definitely something I think you all have the authority to look at in plan >> and we'll see what that looks like in a site plan. Does anyone else from the board have any questions? >> One other question. Just curious where
this falls in the flood plane uh in that garage level and if it's uh affected at all by the new flood plane regulations. >> Um it does need a flood plane permit as far as I'm aware and um it has to >> Did they get that in already so they don't have to deal with the added
>> or is that not relevant here? >> I actually don't know. The parking is grade level, right? >> Yes. down at the >> Yeah. side, >> but not they're not digging a hole. >> No. >> Beyond footings and foundations. Gotcha.
>> So, Megan, just to your point earlier on the the street side versus the riverside, I I think we have language in here that already talks about, you know, the site needs to sort of be designed from all around so that it's, you know, comparable quality. But we can make sure that that's very clear um that, you
know, the quality needs to sort of match. There's no there's no back door basically. Uh just because I know you had mentioned the shade tree commission in some of the language. Can you also just add the environmental commission just to cover
us because I think I think the lighting is fine. I know they like to use um invasive and non-invasive and native. Mhm. >> Um, so maybe just like couch some of the the lighting and um
>> and landscaping >> landscaping with like and please consider I don't know review by the environmental commission >> um >> going to be part of >> yeah that will be a part of it but to Megan's point um EC is introducing an
ordinance for native plants species based on a New Jersey list of native plants. So, I'll send that send you that so you can incorporate that. So, it's actually there >> because I think that's up for council first reading
tomorrow. >> And then I think just for for the notes, where do we land on the minimum affordable housing? No, not a parking uh parking. >> Initially I heard one point >> 1.2 >> two. Uh >> initially it was one and then I think I
heard 1.2. Wilson, who did you have? You were against the one, but the 1.2 >> from a market standpoint, I think that they'll choose not to have one. >> I think it's too few. >> So, I mean, 1.2 would be my minimum that
I'd be interested in hearing about. Does anyone from the public have any questions or comments? >> I'll just add that I'm comfortable with one. So, if anybody >> bonus >> Yeah, as the as the bonus. I'm comfortable with just one. As uh somebody stated, you're right next to the train station,
>> you know. Let's uh let's consider public transportation. >> Marjorie, if you could just go straight to the microphone. It's already on. >> Always. I think this is on. Yeah. Morty Cavalere Bridge Avenue Redbank. So I was at the
December meeting. So the first thing that I did was go to something that was included in their packet which was a summary of of the December meeting. So I just wanted to point out some things that I took away from that meeting that
I was hopeful about that I haven't heard yet discussed. some of the things have been discussed which is rewarding. So first thing I want to ask is anybody gonna speak for the river here or should I also I also have some concerns like the Lorax for the trees me for the
river. So, so the first thing was um that I don't think came out in the summary enough was that if the density was reduced, there could be more access for the public and it would be less
confusing and maybe that link up could be made with with the piece with the ramp that's owned by New Jersey Transit. So, personally, as somebody that uses that a lot and goes over to the Swimming River walkound, you know, that that to
me is a big turnoff that we go down this narrow little walkway and then you know what, you know, we have a little go back and forth. So, that was one thing. So, so the scale was something that really came out, I think,
when the public was there. And when they talk about the aesthetic and and the scale, one of the things that was asked for by the public was exactly was to your point, what does it look like from the bridge? This is this is the
entrance. Will this obscure our view of the Galleria? Yeah, it's called the Galleria, but it was the Eisner factory, which was so integral to the establishment of Redbank as a place as a workplace and and commerce. So, you
know, I don't know if these developers knew that at the height of World War I, 5,000 people were employed there. And, you know, there was a relationship with presidents of the United States. So, so that story should be told. And if you're coming over that bridge and all you see
is the big sign that says Navvice Crossing and you don't have any view of the factory, that was so important to us. I think that is just a shame to put it mildly. And the thing that was said there and is in the summary of the
December 2025 comment was to rem remove that sign that was much too large. And you don't see any other apartment buildings in town that have that kind of advertisement at that size. and maybe do a mural, which hopefully we have to be
very mindful about the kind of mural that it is and that it will last because the one next to the rail, if anybody's gone down Mammoth Street, is peeling. I mean, it's a it's a shame, you know. So, um, okay. So, get rid of the sign or put
it over the entrance so they know where to enter the building and and do something on the side. So, uh, the other question, um, about the park, the walkway, um, and if you're going to have some trees on that, how is that
possible? And the fact that one side is like only three feet from the the property line is is that allowed anywhere, you know, and there wouldn't be a problem if there were less units, if it was not as dense. Um, I did
talk to somebody at the New Jersey Department of uh Environmental Protection today. And so the question is about the flood zone, at least what he told me is it's m it's measured from the middle of the railroad tracks into the property and and that is just
44 feet and then the rest of the property falls into the flood zone. So, you know, again, less dense, maybe you don't have to be that concerned about it. And if people are going to be spending millions of dollars and then they have their garage
flooded, they're going to come to you or well, the council, but so, so that's a that's a concern. So um then I think oh the the couple of people are mentioning the street level and if you
look at the pictures the rendering it seems like it the the apartment the condos don't start until street level. So I'm not sure where this building is going to look and and what we're going
to see if we're going to be able to see any be of Redbank beyond the building. I agree. I think it could just be the building coming in and then we have the other large building coming over the Cooper Bridge. So, are we going to see any of Red Bank?
>> The rendering of of the that exposure would be important to see. I agree with you. >> Yeah, the elevation >> there's a rendering in the packet now where right on the river you see the full building. So, that's going to be incredibly obvious as you're coming across the building. Mhm.
>> But I'm thinking with the elevation change, the gallery is much further much. It's It's got to be five There's got to be an elevation change of 5 to 10 feet between
um Shrewsbury Avenue and Bridge Avenue. >> So I think visually you're still going to see the sign on the Galleria, >> right? But I think the rendering of that rendering I think will be important for us to see. >> Well, historically the way the building
looks is more important than just being able to see the gallery of sign. So >> I agree. >> That's that's my point of view. So thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Can I add something on on the sign, Susan? the the way the plan is written,
is the sign already understood where it's going to be and what it looks like or is it just how specific is it on the sign? Because I want the board to realize the more specific you are in the plan that that takes away room for you to do
anything during site plan because the ordinance already prescribes for where things need to be or what sizes they are etc etc. uh site plan if you come in on a completely variance-free application is then reduced to um you know
circulation and and those those sort of things. You want if they don't need a variance for the sign which they won't need it if the plan's really specific then they can put the sign wherever the plan says they can put the sign. The um sign is on the it's it's the same
facade as the mural I believe. So it's the as you're coming in from the river um and it's specific as to the size and also it ba basically refers to the rendering in terms of the location. So the size is like >> yeah there's this the sign and then the mural. Those are the two sort of
components of signage. The sign area uh is 90 90 square feet which is 13 feet high uh and 8 in in width. Um and there's some parameters on height. So it's the the measurement of the that
sign is 90 square ft total. Um and I think that's shown at the sort of top of the the building. And then the mural area would be on the same facade. Uh and that is capped at 448 square ft. It's come down in size since what they proposed initially. Um, and the design has to be coordinated with the burough
manager and the visual arts committee. >> Could you possibly put that image up on the screen? >> Yeah. >> Just so everyone can visually see what you're talking about. >> Yep. Sorry about that. >> Yeah, that I mean they they know what they want. >> Yep. >> Yeah.
>> Just going to go down. Yep. Okay. Yeah. So, this is facing as you're coming down Shrewberry Avenue. Uh, and it's a building sign. Yeah. Uh, wall sign, I should say. So you can kind of see it's it's hard to get the zoom in
right. Um so the sign itself would be here at the top. It's in black letters. Navas crossing. It fit into that that area. This whole area would be 90 square feet which sounds like a lot but when it's at the top of the building on that facade I don't think it's enormous. Um
and then the rest of this facade could be devoted to the mural area. Whether that whole area is full or not I think is still to be determined. But this is sort of the maximum area that they have to work with. Uh and again the design of that mural is all subject to the burrow. >> But Susan, if this is in the plan,
>> this is in the plan. The rendering is >> So typically the application should look like the plan. >> Yeah. And there's >> unless the plan uses permissive language that says it should look like this or uh this is a this is a sample of what it
may look like. >> Yeah. And the language currently says and this was definitely negotiated with the developer uh that it needs to be substantially similar to what's in plan. It's doesn't require strong language. Pretty strong. Yeah. >> Yes. So, so that is what you that's what
you're going to see because if they come in with something different, you're going to say that's not substantially similar. So, be sure when you adopt this plan that that is what you want to see. >> No, you know, this is obviously not being done tonight. I I have a feeling we're carrying this to the next meeting unless
>> it the sign is significantly different if than what was proposed first. The Navison crossing actually was the entire length of that wall. Um and I believe that that's what Marjgerie's referring to is that it was that huge length of it
and we actually talked about it and I kind of said absolutely not that we we never allowed anything that crazy. it would just look too enormous on that side. >> But Mr. Lex makes a good point. Right now the language is really tied very
much to the rendering and it basically says it needs to be substantially similar to this and if they come to you and they can make that case that it is then you are somewhat limited in how far you can push them. So you should >> I think also the question of murals uh
is a good one. I I I do worry about murals as as a maintenance item that's not taken care of. I mean, you know, they require >> Right. I mean, if they're maintained, great. But
>> there were many that weren't for a long time. >> Right. >> Right. >> This would look terrible >> if it were appealing. for >> I'm pretty sure that the um visual arts committee that's there has something in their
their operations about maintenance of these signs because that's who you know vouches for the um these murals that's going up around town. >> But that's not an ordinance. Do
>> they? >> It's not a part of the zoning ordinance, but it could be a part of the >> Yeah, the municipal code. >> I I just wanted to circle back to um the question of the the elevation and the rendering that looks toward the burrow
and has the galleria in it. So right now the the plan has language that u requires them to submit elevations and we could be clear that that is one that you must see uh when they come to site. That's a very easy change >> for that elevation too. I I I would en
encourage language that discourages reflective bright materials on that elevation. >> The one that we're looking at right now. >> Yeah. Like right now, the way it's rendered, it's different from the, you know, uh, the brick facads that are facing the galleria. Um, but there's
these kind of like bright white eyeliner details and I think they're uh they it it's too stark. It's too it's too contrasting. It would kind of jump out at you, you know, and I think I don't think that would be the right
approach for that side of the building. I agree. >> Got it. >> And I think that could, you know, it could be uh not necessarily eye-catching, but still very attractive. >> And do we have
>> anyone else from the public? I'm sorry, Megan. Go ahead. Do we have to detail or is there are will there be benches uh in the walkway? >> Oh, sorry. >> Uh there be benches on the walkway.
>> I don't see any in the rendering. >> I think that was possible based on the width and the amount of space that's giving for the landscaping and the path. You put a bench there and someone's going to sit there with a fishing pole and cast it across the sidewalk into the
river. And I'm telling you, all they're going to catch there are eels, having done that as a kid right up the street where my grandfather lived there. Uh I I that's what I foresee a bench causing. >> What about seating throughout like the
public spaces? I saw those like umbrella tables. I just wasn't sure if that was only like a resident. That was for the residents area that their little courtyard area. Okay. >> I believe. >> Yeah. As Sean is correct. We don't have provisions and now I'm remembering it's because of the space limitations for
benches. We do have provisions for the spacing and uh requirements for trees at least every 50t. >> I don't know. we might want to consider because if if the burrow was really thinking about this walkway in a serious
way of like creating an actual walkway that connects around all the >> Oh, wait. You're talking about there I got confused. You're talking about the walkway for the riverfront, not the walkway to the riverfront. >> Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yeah, the walkway on the river.
>> I think we should adding we're going to have benches anywhere. We should have that on public property. >> It's an ement. >> It's an easement. I know. But this is narrow. >> And as a resident, if I live there as a resident, you know,
I I feel like I wouldn't encourage the public to come and hang out. It's a walkway. Come for a walk and then go home. Get a hot dog from Gus. God rest her. Is Gus still alive? I don't know. He's certainly retired. He's retired. his son-in-law runs. >> Son runs it. Yeah.
>> Is there now, George? Um, walk up, get a hot dog, and go home. >> Don't get a hot dog and go down and hang out on a bench on someone else's property just cuz there's an easement. I'm not a big fan of, but um like the the senior center, >> put some benches down there.
>> In other places where there aren't people living above your bench, >> where you're going to go to the corner and get some cannabis and go sit on the bench and smoke it. I knew >> above my unit. And I did I did say earlier to to Sean, I said maybe I'll
move here, but um I don't I don't like the idea of benches. That's just me. >> All right, back to the public. >> Nothing in the plan that precludes that. So, it could be disgusting. >> Bring it up to site plan. Maybe people will cheer. The people, all the haters on Facebook, maybe we'll love the bench.
>> One last thing, which is not in my wheelhouse at all, so I'm going to say it and hopefully one of you picks it up. storm water utilities. So, we're we're looking at all of our drainage throughout town now and we're
sort of at capacity and these are near inlets outfalls. I think that's the that's one thing that was a concern when this was brought to me >> was the storm water. But I feel like this is going to be ironed out. >> Okay. When it comes to site plan
approval, >> do we need anything in the in the plan to make sure >> my I'm I want to make sure that when this come before us for site plan approval that our engineers take a hard look at how this is going to work when when it comes to having storm water on
the site. >> Yeah. Yeah. And that it doesn't um overload our existing system and because it pours into potential support to pour into the nav to bring a storm water management plan. >> Yeah, that's a requirement.
>> Storm water system >> and are there any is there any language that we could add where the developer has to contribute to these like large infrastructure plans if necessary? We have uh we have a provision about off-site improvements. Yeah.
>> Uh that they have to fund any off-site utility infrastructure determined. >> Okay. >> To be necessary. Uh and that includes sewer, water, natural gas, >> and storm water management program. >> Okay. >> Well, the D is also going to have a say in that runoff, right?
>> Yeah. But they're not paying for anything. >> No, but they they they quite well taken. But they they could very well direct what the what the requirements are. >> Yeah. >> Right. And then that would fall under the capital requirements.
>> Yeah. >> Does anyone else from the public have any comments or questions regarding this application? >> I have one other question. How does the sidewalk the public way currently return back? and is and what's the what is its
relationship to that little downs slope that then connects to the bridge to go over Swimming River Park. >> So, and I don't have the Google Street View in front of me, but it there's a um walkway from the sidewalk up on Shrewsbury that comes sort of down
parallel to the driveway. There's some stairs there. There's not, as far as I call, a way to get anywhere else, you know, adjacent to the site other than going back up to Shrewsbury. >> So, you have to go down and effectively dead end and then come back.
>> And I don't know that many people are doing that now because there's it's just a parking lot. You know, I think that um pedestrian way is basically if you were to park there, then you would have a way to walk up to Shrewsbury. Um, but currently it's it's kind of a dead end as you said and I think that's that's
how it would have to be just because of the topography. There's not a direct link to to the existing walkway over the bridge. >> So there's no way to like what if we were to pull the building in slightly off that north >> Yeah. >> yard setback.
>> Is there a way to connect? >> Well, at some point down the road, it's going to connect all the way around town. >> Keep that in mind. >> Right. Okay. Someday. How >> the topography is not >> well the the the riverw walk especially from this site should someday be able to
connect to the senior center >> because you don't have to deal with the bridge and getting under or around the train tracks and all of that. So, but connecting this to the senior center is more doable in my mind than going the other way. >> But I get what >> right? So that's the walkway, right? The
where your pointer is that goes down to the north. Seing that, right? Yeah. >> And so currently the proposal deadends the walkway kind of in that grove of trees. Is that >> uh >> Yes.
>> It comes along the water and then it runs along the water to the north the public access. >> No. Yeah. Like there, right? >> Right. >> It wouldn't be able to connect because that goes into the property >> for that owns the Red Bank Marina.
>> Gotcha. Mhm. >> Where you see that dot coming down is actually I think one of the encroachments. So I think that that's going to go away but that's the this site. >> Uh so as you said it would go up to that grove of trees. >> So can it just connect up to the existing
>> because of the topography that's here? It it can't >> you wouldn't be able to do that without a bunch of switchbacks which you can't really do because it's >> and that'll be easier to see on the site then. >> Yeah. Yeah. If no one else from the board has any questions or comments, someone from you
had a question, man. Come on up. Identify yourself for us. Let us know where you live. >> Hi everyone. I'm Christine Viscanti from EXP Realy and I live on Wallace Street. Um I just wanted to know if any of these are going to be for sale. I feel like we have a tremendous amount going up in
rentals, but there's no anything here. >> Leave their condos for sale, right? >> So, some of them will be for sale. >> All of them, >> okay, >> are proposed to be for sale. >> There you go. >> I wasn't sure. Go get it. >> And I think you're right, ma'am. Like, that is an area that there's kind of lacking is for sale units.
>> Anyone else from the public? >> Come on up, sir. Tell us who you are, where you live. Uh Peter Cavalier uh Bridge Avenue on the uh less talkative half of the Cavalere duo.
Um just a couple of questions to uh to consider uh regarding some practical issues. The first one being the u the walkway down by the river uh in terms of accessibility. Will that be accessible
or open 24/7 or will it be restricted to certain hours and gated off uh at night or whatever? Does anybody know what? >> So, it would be open dawn till dusk um which I think is consistent with
Burough Parks. Um I don't think there's a plan there's no provision in the in the rehabilitation plan for it to be gated. Uh it just it does say dawn to dusk in coordination with the Burough Police Department. Yeah, I think that was a a main point that it at any point
there should not be a gate where >> it again to look like >> people from the p from the public right of way have no right down to travel down. Um we we really want to move away from those type of look in the town.
>> And the other question has to do uh more with the construction activity. um uh living around the corner uh from the Mammoth Street uh construction of the two new apartment uh projects at
times uh Mammoth Street has had to be closed down during construction to bring in heavy equipment, you know, huge cranes bringing in >> which has destroyed the road. >> Yes. >> As you know, >> to bring in AC units, uh building materials, cement trucks coming in to
pour concrete Uh and Mama Street is much much less uh busy than uh Shrewsbury Avenue. So the question is will Shrewsbury Avenue have to be shut down at various times to bring in all of this construction equipment? And where is all that
equipment going to go during the day when they're working on the building, especially in the early stages? I can't imagine Shrewsbury Avenue near the railroad crossing being shut down during the daytime
>> and you know the residual effect of traffic on the other uh streets such as Bridge Avenue and Mammoth Street and Front Street. >> Just a question to consider. >> Yeah. So, so that type of that's all construction. They've got to follow the
construction codes. They've got to make whatever they have to do with the county, with the state, what what whoever is involved and and the town too, but that's not really this board's jurisdiction. >> I understand. >> There is a provision in the draft plan though that requires them to uh submit as part of site plan a construction
phasing plan. >> Okay. >> Um so the planning board won't get into the details of code compliance and that sort of thing in terms of construction. Um but they will look at issues like some of those are unknown right now issues like >> traffic construction site location
between the river the railroad tracks the uh Shrewsbury a Avenue being one of the busiest county roads that I know of uh particularly during school hours or uh pickup hours. Um, and not to mention,
you know, the uh construction uh uh impacts on the New Jersey transit tracks. >> I think it's safe to assume that it's going to suck for a little while and I I think it's a fair assumption, but they've got to submit a plan that we and
our engineer and the burrow can review to their satisfaction. >> Right. >> Talking as a resident, it's going to be a a royal mess. And during um after site plan approval, there is a preconstruction meeting where they sit
down with um traffic safety, the burrow engineer, um everyone, the construction department, everyone kind of gets in a room to kind of iron out the phasing and the timing for when they plan to do road closures so that it doesn't impact um
existing road closures um emergency road closures. So all of that happens kind of after the site plan where the it happens and unfortunately everyone wants to start their project at the same time. I don't think as soon as these guys get their site plan approval they're going
to put shovel to ground. Um it may be a good year or two out after site plan approval. So hopefully that gives a us a break between you know >> there's still time to move. No, I I walk everywhere, so I don't
worry so much about uh traffic. >> I'm thinking of everybody else. Uh but one the just one final comment, you know, I think it's it's really the project itself is is just too dense,
I think, for the property footprint. But it's not just that. It's just the location of this little wedge of land and its proximity proximity to the railroad tracks to the river
and uh just a very difficult location I think to put a 40 uh 40 unit building. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. On that point, what what does the
developer have as of right to build there? Now, >> we're checking 40 units, not to exceed 40 units per acre. >> You think you put a taller building, but the density would be higher
than it is. >> This is five units per acre short of what they build. >> Not necessarily what they ordinance. >> Right. >> Last call. If anyone has any questions
or comments. >> So, we don't accept >> Marger, you can come up and ask it. >> Yeah, >> because I don't really care what the rules are. >> Okay. So, so this is a question from Carmen who lives on Recctor Place.
So, oh, the Riverwalk. Yeah. Oh, okay. Well, she's on the river side. So, yes. Um, so she wanted to know if there's some way of incorporating into the plan how
they're going to address the flood issue based on on the riparian side of things. So is there some way of putting that in the plan that would give you some leverage going forward?
>> That's a state issue. >> So that will be an appendix. Well, this is not approval to build the building. This this is a rehab to to call this rehabilitation zone something. They still have to come in and apply to build the building renderings,
blueprints, all of that. And a storm water management plan. >> Right. Okay. And she also said the chat is disabled. So I don't know I don't know what that means. >> We we don't we don't we're not watching the chat up here. That's why it's disabled. So residents have to be vigilant and
pay attention to what Brian is posting so we know when to show up because >> yeah it'll it'll be public it'll be a public hearing. Everyone will get noticed. >> Sure through Brian >> however they or the burrow website and everyone within 200 feet will get a
written notice. >> Who's got their hand up? >> Yeah, I don't care. Anybody else? >> Okay. Make a motion to close the public portion of the meeting.
>> Second. >> I move that she second it. There we go. All in favor. There we go. Okay. Susan, do we need anything else? >> Coordinate with Shauna on making
changes. Uh, and we'll I guess we'll be back, right? >> So, >> I think it's fine. >> I'm I'm happy to make a motion to recommend the the uh changes in the zone to the mayor and council and encourage the developer to hurry back.
>> Second. >> Wait, wait, we did not solidify the parking. >> That's right. >> Yeah, I'm really nice. I have to get food for my cat. >> Uh, are we doing one point >> minimum? One I think 1.2 is is the
number. >> But that's a minimum, right? They can exceed that. >> Yeah. Feel Yeah. And they may feel like from their market research that >> they want more than that. If they want to, that's fine. 1.2 is a minimum, I think, is okay.
>> There's still discussion, huh? >> Yeah. I feel like were there other issues that maybe you might want to see language? >> I think Megan has some I I really I'm not trying to >> Carrie for further discussion. >> What are you gonna further What are you
going to discuss further? >> We're gonna we're gonna look at >> I think when can I >> the language? >> Yeah. Can I just say this? >> I'm not I don't know that Susan even knows as we're sitting here right now all the changes that everyone was throwing at her. >> When's her next meeting?
And and I think it would be wise for Susan to revise her plan, take her notes, revise her plans, come back at the next meeting, and submit so that the board can see what they're actually voting upon because I don't know that anybody here knows what they're voting
upon right now. >> And I know Shauna hates me. So, um, what? We can't do April 8th. >> Oh, what's today? Today, >> March 11th. >> Today's the 11th. Yeah, I think first the first
25th >> April April 8th >> April 8th doesn't want to carry it. >> It's it's up it's up to the board. I I I just >> you what you can do is you can approve
it subject to the changes being made for final review by the board and then the board can review it at the next meeting. Make sure it's in order and then you can adopt the resolution at that meeting because I don't have a resolution prepared tonight anyway. >> Yeah, April. April, we could move it to April. There's going to be a really nice
project that will make you all feel nice and fuzzy on it. >> Does that make sense what I'm saying? >> Yes. >> Yeah. What she said. >> That makes sense. Yeah. >> Which one? Nice and fuzzy. >> 33 years I've never been warm and fuzzy up here wine. >> Um Okay, I'm okay with that. >> Concur.
>> I think it's worth getting right rather than having to revise it. >> Yeah, you're just going to carry you're going to carry the public hearing to to the next meeting. >> We close the public portion of the meeting. >> Okay. Then then you've approved the >> the motion should be that you're going
to recommend this plan to the burough council subject to a final review of the revised rep uh plan that incorporates the comments of the of the board >> at the March >> provisions April April 18th
>> April 18th eight sorry >> oh I'll be back from >> so someone just wants to make the motion that >> I'm gonna make that motion to carry this motion Okay. >> And uh for a final review with no further notice to the public
>> or or public hearing. >> The public hearing is closed. >> The public hearing is closed. Everyone had their chance. >> Okay. Do I >> Not that I won't open it up if someone has a significant question because I love the public. >> Do I do a roll call or can I do all in favor? >> You can do an all favor on there. >> All in favor? >> Do the roll do the roll call. I'm sorry.
No. No. It should be a roll call. I apologize. >> Shauna Ebanks. Yes. Christina Bonitakis. >> Yes. >> Damnuso. >> Yes. Luis Stento, Megan Massie, >> Wilson BB, >> Hernandez, and Brian Parnean.
>> Okay. >> Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I love it when you come. >> Thanks, Susan. I really do. Thank you, Susan. Good to see you again. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> All in favor? I. >> Thank you.