By Sunayana Prabhu
RED BANK – Whether a major redevelopment or a minor subdivision, borough residents have been consistently voicing opposition to what they see as overdevelopment. At a recent meeting, the borough’s planning board approved a rehabilitation designation for two properties, but tabled a subdivision request at 106 Leighton Ave. after neighbors raised concerns about growth, density and neighborhood character.
At the Sept. 10 meeting, board members recommended that the borough council designate two properties – 26 Shrewsbury Ave. (Block 39, Lot 31) and the former Exxon gas station at 80 Rector Place (Block 1, Lot 1) – as areas in need of rehabilitation.
According to the board’s review, the majority of the area adjacent to these properties has been in the borough’s existing rehabilitation zone; these two parcels weren’t.
The rehabilitation designation for these properties was prompted by a developer’s proposal for apartments on the Shrewsbur y Avenue property, located next to the Red Bank Marina with views of the Senator Kyrillos Bridge and situated along the busy Shrewsbury Avenue corridor, across from The Galleria.
Shawna Ebanks, the borough’s director of community development for planning and zoning, reviewed six potential criteria for rehabilitation; these parcels met two standards – underutilization and environmental contamination. During the meeting, Ebanks explained the six criteria, which include deterioration, substandard condition, more than half the housing stock being 50 years old or older, vacancy or underutilization, persistent mortgage or property tax payment delinquency, and environmental contamination or infrastructure threshold where water and infrastructure are 50 years old or older.
In this specific case, the former gas station property at 80 Rector Place met the underutilization and environmental contamination criteria, while 26 Shrewsbury Ave. met the substandard condition and underutilization criteria. The board moved to approve the resolution recommending the borough council designate both of the properties as areas in need of rehabilitation.
Leighton Avenue Application
Another application to subdivide 106 Leighton Ave. into two lots was presented to the board at the meeting. Although a minor subdivision, the application by 160 Leighton Ave. LLC received strong pushback from neighbors due to the property’s proximity to Red Bank Primary School at the end of River Street, where the proposed two-story house is planned.
The nearly 8,000-square-foot lot at the corner of Leighton Avenue and River Street consists of an existing one-story house of about 1,500 square feet and a detached two-car garage, according to plans presented by project engineer and planner Joseph Kociuba. The existing home and detached garage would remain on one lot, Kociuba said, while the newly created lot would allow for construction of a two-story house with a 2,000-square- foot footprint and an attached one-car garage.
According to Kociuba, the subdivision is consistent with the neighborhood’s character. Compared to some of the surrounding lots in the area, the proposed development is a “substantially oversized lot,” he said. “We’re not creating anything unusual.”
The plan requires several variances, including for lot width and side-yard setbacks. Kociuba argued the relief requested would allow for better planning, maintaining adequate spacing between homes and would comply with parking requirements.
“I don’t believe there’s any substantial detriment to the public good as a result of the application. It’ll comply with height, it’ll comply with coverages. The proposed lot is slightly under 50 feet in width; so is the rest of the neighborhood generally,” he said, adding that the project is appropriate in scale and design for the area. However, some of the surrounding homeowners were not on the same page, considering the property abuts River Street, which leads straight down to Red Bank Primary School.
“This building that they’re putting up is going to obstruct the whole view. And it’s scary and it’s frightening because we have traffic, we have a guard patrol, we have walkers,” said resident Vicky Nelson, citing the heavy school traffic on River Street.
Others questioned whether the proposal fits the character of the neighborhood, which they described as already crowded.
Resident Shawn McInerney said the application sought “five different variances. That seems like a lot of variances for what is just one home to shoehorn into what is a relatively small piece of property.”
“Traffic in that intersection is extremely busy,” resident Mark Taylor said. He also clarified that the actual square footage of the existing house is around 900 square feet and not nearly 1,500 square feet as presented to the board. “It’s a very small corner property, very cute property with an established magnolia… I would hate to see that destroyed for the purposes of squeezing another home in,” Taylor said.
Board members questioned the applicant’s professionals on parking compliance, setbacks and tree replacement obligations. The size of the proposed new structure also needed clarification.
Initial discussions suggested a 2,000-square-foot house, which would be “massive in this neighborhood,” board member Megan Massey said. But in his subsequent testimony, the applicant’s attorney, Ed McKenna, clarified. “Realistically, you’re probably more likely (looking at) about 1,500 square feet.” However, that number is also an estimate, board attorney Marc Leckstein noted, suggesting the applicant return to the board with more details on the plans.
McKenna told the board the applicant will factor in all the feedback and is willing to modify the proposal to address community concerns.
The planning board decided to carry the hearing to its Oct. 22 meeting, requesting more detailed architectural elevations and parking configurations.
The article originally appeared in the September 18 – September 24, 2025 print edition of The Two River Times.
