Council sends Holy Spirit Church redevelopment to planning board amid parking and tax concerns

A majority of the Asbury Park Mayor and City Council voted to send a developer’s revised proposal for the former Holy Spirit Church site at 701–705 Second Avenue to the city planning board for a study of whether the property qualifies as an area in need of redevelopment.

The referral — Resolution 2025-209 — passed 3–2 on April 16, with Council members Chapman, Clayton and Deputy Mayor Quinn voting yes and Council member Bez Anderson and Mayor Moore voting no. The referral asks the planning board to investigate Block 2703, Lot 3701705 and report back; it does not approve a redevelopment plan, a pilot agreement or any tax relief.

The vote followed a developer presentation and an hour-plus of public comment in which residents raised parking, traffic and school-tax concerns and supporters emphasized preservation and housing need. Planning consultant Beth McManus told the council the resolution would "authorize [the] planning board to study whether the site qualified as an area needed for development" and that designation and any pilot would come back to council for further votes.

Developers Joe Savannah and Ozzy Yacine said the project had been revised since a prior presentation. Savannah said the project now proposes 80 units (down from 90 in an earlier version) and an increase in parking supply. He described parking rules as: "1 parking space for every market rate unit and 2 parking for every 3‑bedroom unit," and said three ADA spaces were added. The developers said total parking in the design is 83 spaces, with 67 at grade plus lift stackers that produce the 83‑space total.

Savannah also described operational changes intended to reduce parking demand: office space on the lower level would be restricted to building tenants (residential tenants and church tenants) rather than leased to outside businesses, and some lobby/retail areas were reconfigured so the church interior would retain civic/retail‑facing elements.

Multiple residents told the council they were sympathetic to preserving the church’s exterior and supporting additional housing but remained worried about on‑street parking and infrastructure strain. "We did not drive and we did not take up any parking spaces when we attended Mass," said Kathy McQueen, a long‑time parishioner, urging preservation and reuse. Several other speakers, including nearby homeowners, said neighborhood streets already fill during peak months and predicted the project’s parking assumptions "do not add up."

Speakers also discussed affordable and workforce units. The developers presented two scenarios for the 16 income‑restricted units (20% of the total, the developers said): a mix that includes very‑low, low and moderate income units, or a scenario with a higher share of moderate‑income ("workforce") units. Planning consultant Beth McManus explained that under New Jersey rules "affordable housing here in New Jersey is defined as 80% or less than median income" and that recent changes require new rental affordable units to be restricted for 40 years.

Council members who voted yes said the revised plan represented an improvement from the developer’s prior proposal. Council member Clayton said he met with the developer and concluded the changes "made this a better development than it was in the past." Deputy Mayor Quinn said the project’s reductions in density and increases in parking and changes to the church program "is a better project." Council member Bez Anderson said she appreciated the revisions but voted no, citing unresolved quality‑of‑life and parking concerns.

The council and speakers also discussed financial projections and the municipal share of projected revenues. Developers provided a revised estimate of annual gross revenue and a municipal share figure (developers described an earlier $330,000 figure as incorrect and cited a revised $295,000 estimate), but council members and residents said additional fiscal detail would be needed before any pilot or tax‑relief agreement.

The council’s referral only directs the planning board to study the site; McManus and staff repeatedly emphasized that designation, a redevelopment plan and any pilot or tax agreement would require later council action. After the referral vote, the agenda continued with routine consent resolutions (loans, purchases and administrative items) that the council approved by separate votes.

Votes at a glance: the council approved the planning‑board referral for Block 2703, Lot 3701705 (Resolution 2025‑209) 3–2; it approved a string of consent and individual resolutions including a liquor license transfer (Plenary retail license #130), a loan application for wastewater treatment plant improvements (Loan S340883‑09) and multiple equipment and maintenance procurements listed on the consent and regular agendas. Ordinance 2025‑9 (amendments prohibiting motorized vehicles on the boardwalk) was tabled for further language review.

The planning board will study whether the Holy Spirit site should be designated an area in need of redevelopment and report back; any redevelopment plan, pilot agreement, or municipal tax arrangements would return to the council for separate votes.

Ending: Council members and the public left open multiple questions — parking management, the exact mix of affordable versus workforce units, and fiscal projections for municipal revenue and county/school impacts — that would be central to future planning‑board hearings and any subsequent council decisions.