Asbury Park planning board approves 1-year interim parking lot at 512–514 Summerfield Ave with conditions

The Asbury Park Planning Board on Feb. 24, 2025 approved a one-year interim parking lot at 512–514 Summerfield Avenue, allowing Sacrament Asset Management LLC to operate a 19-space lot while pursuing redevelopment of the site.

The board attached conditions including required landscaping on the northwest corner, removal of on-site trash containers, maintenance of existing lighting by the property owner for the duration of the interim agreement, and a requirement that the applicant file a development application within 60 days. The board added that if the city council considers any extension, it should confirm the applicant has made a good-faith effort to advance the redevelopment or send the matter back to the planning board for further review. The vote to approve the application with those conditions was 8–1.

The application covered two contiguous parcels identified in testimony as Block 3101, Lots 2 and 3 (referred to in the hearing as 512 and 514 Summerfield Ave). Counsel for the applicant said the proposal is an interim parking lot permitted under the city’s CBD redevelopment plan and that the interim parking agreement allows an initial one-year term with the option for two additional one-year extensions that require city-council approval.

Andrew Carriage, representing Sacrament Asset Management LLC, told the board the interim use is temporary and that a formal development application would follow. "I expect actually within a week to be submitting that application," Carriage said. Ian Burton, a site civil engineer with Mid Atlantic who testified for the applicant, described the existing surface lot as having 19 spaces and explained dimensions and layout under the interim plan: of the 19 spaces, 16 would be 16 feet long and 8.5 feet wide and three would be 18 feet long and 8.5 feet wide, with a 24-foot drive aisle. Burton also testified that the lot historically had 20 spaces until a transformer installation reduced one space.

The applicant confirmed it is not proposing new pole-mounted lighting as part of the interim lot; instead the applicant said the lot would rely on existing lighting on adjacent buildings and a nearby street light. "We're not proposing any of those," Burton said when asked whether new lighting fixtures would be installed for the interim lot. Board members raised safety and control concerns because much of the existing illumination sits on adjacent properties not fully controlled by the applicant. The board held a short on-site visit that included representatives and board professionals; participants described the existing lighting as subjectively adequate for now but noted the board cannot guarantee maintenance unless required by condition.

Board members and staff flagged several technical issues the interim plan does not address. The site, as proposed for interim use, includes a high percentage of compact parking stalls that exceed the planning code allowance: the applicant requested design waivers because existing parcel width limits made providing full-size spaces impractical without eliminating spaces. The applicant also is not proposing stormwater-management upgrades during the interim term; staff and consultants noted runoff currently grades to an adjacent lot.

In its conditions the board required: removal of on-site trash receptacles; installation of a planted buffer at the northwest corner (to be reviewed by the city planner); the applicant maintain existing site and adjacent-building lighting during the interim term; and that the applicant file its formal development application within 60 days. The board also requested that when the matter goes to city council for any extension, council should verify progress and, if appropriate, return the application to the planning board to reassess any waivers or exceptions granted earlier.

The board’s discussion acknowledged competing views: several members said they disliked surface parking but were reluctant to force improvements for a use the applicant says will be redeveloped shortly. Other members emphasized that an interim approval should not become an open-ended waiver and pushed for firm timelines and enforceable conditions.

Votes at a glance

- Resolution for 316 Main Street (amendment): approved by roll call earlier in the meeting; specific amendment language not specified on the record. (Refer to action record below.)

- Application: 512–514 Summerfield Ave (interim parking lot for Sacrament Asset Management LLC): motion to approve application with conditions passed 8–1. Chairwoman Barbara Kerzak cast the lone no vote on the final tally.

The board’s approval is limited to the interim parking use and the conditions listed in the resolution; any extension beyond the initial one-year term requires city-council approval. The applicant reiterated plans to file a redevelopment application promptly. "I expect actually within a week to be submitting that application," Andrew Carriage said at the meeting.

The board noted the CBD redevelopment plan allows for interim uses and sets the process for council review and extension; the board’s conditions are intended to balance short-term parking needs downtown with the city’s longer-term redevelopment goals.