By Allison Perrine
RED BANK – Tensions were again high at the April 7 council meeting as elected officials debated whether or not property at 80 Shrewsbury Ave. should be added to the Recreation and Open Space Inventory (ROSI) list.
The motivation behind the discussion was to ensure the waterfront property, which is home to the existing Red Bank Senior Center, remains a public property and that it not be developed for other purposes. All six council members agreed that it should remain public property, but some questioned if adding it to the ROSI list would be the best way to do so.
“These things are not one level; they are complicated and they take a deeper understanding of what the implications are,” said councilwoman Kate Triggiano. “I think it would be right for everybody here to be fully informed about what that means.
The ROSI is a master list of properties owned by counties and municipalities designated for recreation or conservation purposes, both funded and unfunded with the help of the state Green Acres program. The list is maintained by the Bureau of Legal Services and Stewardship and its representatives inspect the sites to ensure they are well maintained, open and accessible for the public, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.
But there are implications to adding the property to the ROSI, said borough attorney Gregory Cannon, including giving up jurisdiction to the property. He posed the question of whether the borough would want the state “looking over your shoulder every time” it wants to do something at the property, including future repair or maintenance work.
Cannon said if the borough does want to ensure the property remains a public space, there are other ways to do so, such as with a deed restriction. He promised to compile a list of options the borough could take to accomplish that goal and bring it back to officials – and adding it to the ROSI is still on the table.
Mayor Pasquale “Pat” Menna suggested that the council stop the discussion and return to it at next month’s workshop meeting once there is more information on other options. Councilman Michael Ballard was not satisfied.
“No,” he repeated. “We’re kicking the ball down the road again.”
He said his frustrations have accumulated over time as the borough has delayed repairing the senior center. He gave an example of when the council approved a resolution in February to search for a “healthy” approach to move forward within the redevelopment agency (RDA), a group currently tasked with finding viable solutions to issues with multiple borough facilities in town. At that time, Ballard insisted the council create a separate resolution solely focused on the senior center, demanding that it be repaired. His resolution did not succeed.
“I don’t understand why we’re hiding behind a redevelopment agency when it’s a very clear ask from the taxpayer to do a simple thing, to fix it. But we’re hiding behind a redevelopment agency and this resolution and all of this other – we’re twisting ourselves in pretzels when we can just agree to fix it,” Ballard said at the February meeting.
That’s why he wanted to move forward with adding the property to the ROSI April 7 instead of waiting for the next meeting or for the borough attorney’s list of other options. “It’s been over two years that that property has been sitting vacant and every single time somebody brings up actually doing something with it, you guys just kick the ball down the road. Every single time,” he said.
Ballard added that the redevelopment agency is currently reviewing plans for the future senior center. But that is a “dangerous, false narrative,” said Triggiano, who assured there are no plans to develop the property; instead, plans presented would allow for the repair or rebuilding of the senior center at 80 Shrewsbury Ave. or relocation of it to Count Basie Fields – which is already on the ROSI, according to councilman Ed Zipprich.
“I just really want to emphasize that this is on track, that there is a really great process happening right now and that nobody should be implying otherwise. It’s really dangerous and it’s not right. It’s not right to do to people,” Triggiano said. “There are active steps being made. There are architectural proposals that were just put forward by DMR (Architects) to the RDA with some wonderful options for the town,” she added and said she felt “very discouraged once again” that anyone would imply there’s a threat to the well-being of the property.
Ultimately, four of the six council members wanted to postpone the discussion until more information about other options is available.
This article originally appeared in the April 15 – 21, 2021, print edition of The Two River Times.
