Developer outlines garage, 54 rentals and Wesley Lake flood plan; residents raise alarm
Loading...
Summary
Asbury Park’s master redeveloper presented a three‑part waterfront project — flood mitigation for Wesley Lake, a 5.5‑story public parking garage and a five‑story, 54‑unit residential wrap — drawing strong public opposition over design, affordability and developer accountability.
Jennifer Phillips Smith, an attorney for the master redeveloper, told the Asbury Park City Council that the proposal for Block 3904 Lot 1 now includes three linked components: a public parking garage, a residential wrap and a flood‑mitigation program for Wesley Lake.
"We are proposing a parking garage that's 5.5 stories, and residential has been reduced from 8 stories down to 6 stories, and now has 54 units," Jennifer Phillips Smith said during the council presentation. She said the team also added a flood‑mitigation component after continued discussions about lake flooding.
Engineer Stephen Clark, who identified himself as the master redeveloper’s professional engineer, explained the flood problem and the technical approach. He said Wesley Lake behaves as a coastal lake influenced by tides, and that the existing outfall and weir have limited capacity during intense rain and high tides. Clark said the firm has completed hydraulic modeling reviewed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and is analyzing larger or multiple outfall pipes that would create a passive, not manually operated, system.
"Ballpark, $5,000,000," Clark said when asked for an approximate cost for the flood mitigation solution, adding that final design will determine the exact amount. He and other presenters estimated a permitting period followed by roughly 12 months of construction once approvals are in hand.
The developers said the flood work would be funded through the master developer’s infrastructure program — bonds backed by special assessments on new waterfront construction inside the redevelopment area — not from the city’s general fund. "It does not come out of the general obligation or general fund of the City of Asbury Park," Jennifer Phillips Smith told the council, adding that the assessment would apply only to newly constructed waterfront properties in the redevelopment area.
Architect Frank Minervini described the garage as a precast concrete structure that the team plans to build first. He confirmed the project will provide a minimum of 200 public parking spaces per the redevelopment plan, with roughly 97 spaces set aside for the 54 rental units. Minervini said the design anticipates natural ventilation, required ADA and EV accommodations, a rooftop amenity area of about 5,000 square feet and a proposed mural on the south facade to improve visual integration with the surrounding area.
Planner Kate Keller said the site has been envisioned in the 2002 waterfront redevelopment plan as the location for a 200‑space public parking facility and that the current submission is scaled back from prior proposals and generally complies with the plan as amended in 2019.
Residents and business owners filled the council chambers for public comment and voiced broad skepticism about the redeveloper's track record and the plan’s social and cultural impacts. Dan Cholomeo, a longtime local resident, said the waterfront has a history of unmet developer promises. "They look at their bottom line ... They don't care about you," Cholomeo said. He urged the council not to allow more waterfront building until prior obligations are fulfilled.
Several speakers asked for more community input, criticized the proposed color palette and massing as out of step with Asbury Park’s visual identity, and warned the residential units risk displacing longtime workers and performers. Paradise night‑club manager Joseph Christie said his venue pays substantial property taxes and cautioned that noise complaints could eventually pressure venues to reduce outdoor programming.
Council members and the developer team agreed on procedural next steps: tonight’s session was a presentation only and no vote was taken. The presenters said they would return with formal developer‑agreement terms, financial materials related to a prospective pilot (tax/assessment structure) and design refinements for the planning board and city review. The developer requested two subsequent developer agreements — one for the parking deck and one for the residential wrap — and said it would not start residential construction until flood mitigation permitting and construction had begun.
The council did not adopt or reject the proposal at this meeting; the project will return to the city’s regulatory process for further review and required permits.
