Asbury Park Planning Board approves Views at North Shore with conditions after technical revisions

The Asbury Park Planning Board on May 19 approved the Views at North Shore redevelopment application, carried from the April 7 hearing, with conditions requiring revised plans and several technical clarifications.

The board voted 8–0 with one member ineligible to vote to grant the application for two residential buildings proposed by APW Redeveloper (property to be sold to K. Hovnanian), with conditions including updated site and landscape plans, revised lighting modeling and custom cutoff shields, confirmation of roof drainage routing into the project stormwater system, and finished material clarifications.

The project team said it resubmitted plans on April 28 to address the board’s concerns and walked the board through further adjustments at Monday’s meeting. "We did resubmit plans on April 28 to address a number of the changes," said Jennifer Phillips Smith, an attorney with Gibbons representing the applicant. Civil engineer Robert Curley described roof drainage changes, saying the new gutters and downspouts "will tie into a lateral system that'll ultimately run around the building and tie into the stormwater detention base." Planner testimony described the requested design exceptions and concluded the changes produced ‘‘a good set of compromises.’’

Most important approvals and required follow-ups - Plan consistency: The board recorded several updated exhibits (color board, A8; roof screening/drainage exhibit, A9; updated lighting exhibit) and required the applicant to update site, architectural and landscape plans so the construction documents match the rendering and exhibits presented at the May 19 hearing. - Drainage: The engineering witness testified gutters and downspouts on shed roofs and tower elements will collect roof runoff, route it via scuppers and hard pipe around the buildings and into the stormwater detention system rather than discharging to planter areas; the board required that routing be shown on final plans. - Lighting: The applicant added bollard lighting and reran modeling with revised fixture files. The engineer agreed to provide custom cutoff shields on specific fixtures and to re-run photometrics so there is no lighting spill onto adjacent properties; the board required the lighting plan be updated and dated as of May 19. - Landscaping and plantings: Renderings were revised to show taller plantings (testified to be installed at approximately 6-foot height at installation). The board required the landscape plan be updated to match the renderings and agreed plant species may be adjusted from the plant list in consultation with staff. - Screening and mechanicals: The applicant presented an A9 roof-screening exhibit showing freestanding screened enclosures elevated above the roof to visually screen rooftop mechanical equipment where adjacent to neighboring buildings; the board approved the proposed approach, including parapets and additional screening where needed. - Utilities and flood elevation: The engineering elevation information showed electric and gas meters located above the site’s flood elevation (testimony cited adjacent ground elevations near 13.0–13.2). The applicant represented that the meter locations meet utility clearance and flood-elevation requirements.

What the board required as conditions of approval - Applicant to submit updated, dated electronic final plan sets (site, architectural, landscape, lighting, roof/drainage) consistent with exhibits presented and with the board professional comments; new exhibits shown at the hearing must be dated 05/19/2025 on final submission. - Lighting: provide updated photometric models and custom cutoff shields so there is no measured light spill on adjacent properties; exterior fixtures limited to the kelvin requirements noted in staff reports. - Drainage and gutters: show gutter/downspout routing and demonstrate hard-piped connection into the stormwater management/detention system on final civil plans; clarify that runoff will not discharge to planting beds. - Landscaping: update landscape sheets to show taller plantings, planter details and the revised trapezoid entrance detail; plantings described in testimony to be installed at the heights represented in renderings. - Materials and finishes: update material callouts (sand-float finish, Parex or specified masonry finish) and confirm limestone cap on retaining walls per testimony. - Operational details: require motion-sensor lighting for emergency stairs and confirm assigned parking, key-fob access and visitor access method in final plan notes. - Agency compliance: submission of any outstanding agency letters (DEP engineering compliance letter was reported as expected) and confirmation of utility company approvals for meter locations.

Discussion and local context Board members and the project team spent substantial time on technical details. Questions from members focused on how new gutters and downspouts would attach to the architectural features and where roof runoff would ultimately discharge; how bollard and building lighting would be modeled and shielded to avoid illuminating neighboring properties; and how landscape, fencing and garage screening would relate to adjacent buildings such as the Kingsley Arms and the Miramar. The board also discussed placement of street trees and how right-of-way planting locations are set by the subsequent developer/master developer process rather than the applicant.

Planner John Barry (professional planner) summarized the design exceptions sought under the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan and testified the project represents a compromise balancing the plan’s design objectives with practical site constraints and utility, stormwater and pedestrian requirements. "I think we've come out with a good set of compromises," Barry told the board.

Vote and next steps The board approved the application on a roll call vote with the following recorded: James Bonanno (yes), Jim Henry (yes), Jeremy Hoffman (yes), Jennifer Sauter (yes), Daniel Shenamayo (not eligible/abstain), Bob Zuckerman (yes), Cathy McLaughlin (yes), Michael Goonan (yes), and Chairwoman Barbara Kurzak (yes). The board secretary and staff will track conditions and receive the dated, final electronic exhibits and plan sets. Staff also noted they expect a DEP engineering compliance letter to arrive following the meeting.

Why this matters The two-building Views at North Shore project occupies a redevelopment block adjacent to Deal Lake Drive, Webb Street and Kingsley Street. The board’s conditions focus on technical controls — drainage, lighting, landscaping and final plan consistency — intended to reduce construction impacts on adjacent properties and public right-of-way and to ensure the design shown to the board is the one that will be built.

Evidence and record The applicant presented revised plans and several marked exhibits at the May 19 hearing and provided testimony from the applicant’s counsel, the civil engineer and the planner. The board’s decision included specific technical follow-ups that the applicant must satisfy in revised documents and agency approvals before receiving final sign-off.