Residents, Zoning Board Raise Questions About Proposed Apartment Building Near Red Bank Train Station

1147
The Red Bank Zoning Board heard testimony Nov. 2 from the architect and lawyer representing an applicant who has proposed a 32-unit, four-story building at Bridge Avenue and Oakland Street. Via Zoom

By Sunayana Prabhu

RED BANK – Final site plans for a four-story residential apartment building by the Red Bank train station went before the zoning board Nov. 2 but met with much resistance from a majority of the board members and residents at the meeting.

The zoning board heard the application for a proposed 32-unit residential apartment building at 78 Bridge Ave. with frontage on Oakland Street.

Project architect Michael James Monroe and attorney Ed McKenna represented applicant American Opportunity Zone Fund, LLC., owned by Rumson-based developer Warren Diamond. They requested preliminary and final site plan approval to demolish all existing structures, including two single-family homes at 128 and 132 Oakland St. and three adjoining commercial buildings at 72, 76 and 78 Bridge Ave. Those commercial buildings house the restaurant Mi Lupita’s Kitchen; Detour Framing and the former Dave’s Car Wash.

Monroe explained that the site is “catty-corner” from The Rail at Red Bank, the newly constructed multifamily luxury apartment complex at 118 Chestnut St.

The proposed courtyard-style building will have a pickleball court on a green roof, four one-bedroom, 26 two-bedroom and two three-bedroom units with additional facilities including but not limited to a 1,295-square-foot coffee shop, 1,000 square feet of retail space, an open plaza area, an entrance lounge, a mail/package room and a mechanical room.

The units will not be for sale, Monroe said, since zoning rules limit the use to rental only. Monroe also noted that the project will not require any variances for height or even design waivers, but board member Paul Cagno said he believes the proposed building is “too big” and “too dense.”

“It’s towering, in my opinion,” he said. “I don’t think it matches the area.”

The borough currently permits 20 units in the transit overlay zone and Monroe said he wasn’t against “making it compliant.”

But Monroe noted that increasing the permitted units to 32 as proposed will allow for more affordable units which the borough must provide as part of its fair share housing obligation with the state’s agency Council On Affordable Housing (COAH). A limit of 20 units will end up with “oversized units and higher rentals” but fewer affordable units, explained McKenna.

“The question is, do you want more affordable housing and more COAH units, or do you want a luxury building with fewer units, higher rentals, and then fewer COAH units.”

Monroe said it is a good location for affordable units because it gets people closer to transportation. “Less driving, less pollution, less people running around, less clutter,” he said.

While the majority of the board recommended reducing the density of the building, board member Ben Yuro agreed with the higher-density proposal. “I think it’s the right spot for it,” he said.

During public comments, resident Scott Wenning echoed others, saying the building is “just too big.”

“Perfectly good single-family homes” could be sold for profit to keep the neighborhood intact, said Wenning. “Nobody wants a pickleball court on the roof.”

Red Bank resident Anthony Setaro’s house sits diagonally across from the two single-family homes proposed for demolition. Setaro, a fifth-generation Red Banker, came to the board with a compilation of historic photographs showing a thriving Italian neighborhood established in 1888 within the radius of the proposed development. He said demolishing the two single family homes will erase that history.

Setaro also said the proposed building poses a safety issue.

“You’re encroaching into an area now between Bridge and Shrewsbury, putting these massive developments,” Setaro said. “This is dangerously close to the train station.”

The board recommended the applicant revise the plan and reapply but did not schedule the matter for a later hearing. The applicant will decide whether to reapply to the board.

In Other Business

An appeal to open a massage school on Monmouth Street won the zoning board’s approval after an initial rejection from Shawna Ebanks, the borough’s director of community development.

The applicant, Woodhouse Spa owner Jennifer Clarke, appealed to run a massage school at 74-76 Monmouth St., a building that previously housed hair salons. The proposed massage school would be in the CCD-2 (Central Commercial District) zone and was denied initially by Ebanks based on a perceived conflict in borough code that allows instructional schools but prohibits massage parlors.

The board overturned that decision at the Thursday meeting, approving the massage school based on testimony provided by Clarke’s attorney John Anderson who convinced the board of a strictly classroom-type setting with traditional book learning as well as hands-on learning in massage therapy.

“We’re not going to be providing massage treatment for pay,” Anderson clarified. “For that reason, we do think we fit more in the category of instruction school – something that’s permitted in the zone – and less in the category of massage parlor.”

Earlier this year, Clarke purchased the Woodhouse Spa Red Bank on Broad Street, which has been in the community for over 10 years. She said it has been “very difficult to hire massage therapists” because “the cost of obtaining a license tends to be very onerous.”

She thought it would be helpful to open a massage school in the area where students can learn and gain hands-on experience at the spa to become licensed massage therapists in New Jersey.

According to Clarke, during and after the COVID-19 pandemic a lot of the schools closed down because people “weren’t coming out to get education. That really caused a shortage in licensed massage therapists.”

The board unanimously approved the massage school subject to municipal regulations related to hours of operation, advertisement restrictions, and other items.

The article originally appeared in the November 9 – November 15, 2023 print edition of The Two River Times.