Concerns Aired Over Proposed Monmouth Beach Wetlands Project

6252
Jennifer Krimko, an attorney on behalf of applicant PM 63 LLC, explained the layout of a project proposed for Riverside Avenue in Monmouth Beach. Allison Perrine

By Allison Perrine

MONMOUTH BEACH – An application to build three single-family homes on property that contains wetlands made waves at the borough’s Jan. 25 planning and zoning board meeting.

Some 60-plus borough residents turned out for the in-person, three-hour meeting when the board heard an application brought by PM 63 LLC, owned by local developer Mario Parisi, for a project along Riverdale Avenue.

Most attendees expressed disapproval, some by voicing their opinions and others by clapping along when objections were raised. But the applicant’s attorney, Jennifer Krimko of Ansell Grimm & Aaron, PC, had some frank remarks for those Monmouth Beach residents.

Citing a mass amount of “community outrage” and “misinformation spread throughout Monmouth Beach” about the project, Krimko assured the room, “This property will be developed. It’s only a question of how,” she said.

She explained the site could be developed in a far more intense manner under current zoning. “Any commercial developer of this site will surely seek to maximize the development to the full extent permitted under the state regulations,” Krimko said. “That is why we are here tonight before you with what our experts believe to be the most responsible and sensitive development for the parcel.”

The project in question spans 59 and 63 Riverdale Ave., owned by the applicant. It contains wetlands that are regulated by state statute and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has exclusive jurisdiction over these areas, trumping local and county regulations relative to wetlands. The agency has already granted the applicant the necessary permits to construct the project.

Passionate objectors Michael-Ann Howley-Gatenby and David Gatenby challenged those approvals with the NJDEP and requested a judicatory hearing, but their request was denied.

However, before any work can be completed, the borough’s unified planning and zoning board must approve a minor subdivision of the property as well as a D1 use variance. 

The plan is to demolish the single existing dwelling on the property and rebuild it next to two single-family homes, which will have an average square footage of 2,424. Each will include multiple bedrooms and bathrooms, a covered porch and uncovered porch and a patio. Two of the three homes will also have pools, planned to be 15-by-30 feet. 

Architect Paul Grabowski, who testified at the Jan. 25 meeting, said in his professional opinion, the proposed development would fit in with the character of the neighborhood.

Aside from the homes at the site, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 34,931 square feet of vegetation and wetlands behind the property to the borough to remain as open space.

According to licensed engineer and planner Jason Fichter, because the property sits in the B- (Retail) Zone, generally permitted uses in the area include banks, retail space, offices, restaurants and multifamily affordable housing. The applicant feels single-family homes are a better use for the site for “several reasons.”

“We’re adjacent and across the street from the A-1 single-family zone. The appearance of the immediate neighborhood is entirely residential,” said Fichter. “A commercial use would have significant negative impacts to this otherwise developed single-family area.”

Fichter also spoke to the traffic impacts anticipated with this development, which he said were a “significant consideration” for this application. The proposed single-family homes each generate an average of 10.1 trips per day, according to state standards, Fichter said. If it were developed commercially, that traffic impact would be “significantly higher.”

“A 4,200-square-foot store, which would fit on this property, would generate 3,100 trips per day. To me, I would say that’s an inappropriate, unacceptable amount of traffic in this quiet residential neighborhood,” he said. “If approved and constructed, the neighborhood will appear entirely consistent; we’re proposing homes that are surrounded by other homes.”

After board members questioned the professionals, the public had a chance to do the same. Some even gave public comments about the application, though, due to time restraints, most others will voice their opinions at the next meeting Feb. 22. An objector’s presentation will also be given by Howley-Gatenby and Gatenby before a vote is taken on the dais.

Monmouth Beach resident Dave Hochnan was one of the few who commented before the meeting time ran out. A local for decades, Hochnan said he “publicly” opposes this project for numerous reasons, including the continuous decrease in nondeveloped open space, increasing flooding concerns and the expenses that ensue related to that flooding.

“As more and more land gets paved over, these costs are only going to increase for me and my neighbors,” he said.

Resident Margo Hassan said she understands that property owners should be able to build on the lots they own, “but within reason,” and also expressed concerns about flooding that could relate to the development near wetlands.

Last to speak was resident John Walder who said, of the topics discussed that night, the one he found “most offensive” was Krimko’s “threat” in stating that should the board deny this application, another developer might build something denser in its place.

“There’s no 7-11 going in. There’s no Wawa going in,” he said. “It’s a beautiful open space.”

The article originally appeared in the January 27 – February 2, 2022 print edition of The Two River Times.