Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Planning board to recommend Shrewsbury Avenue rehabilitation plan with revisions after public concerns about density, flood risk and signage
Loading...
Summary
Planner presented a rehabilitation plan for 2628 Shrewsbury Avenue proposing two condominium buildings (40 units) with a 15% on-site affordable set-aside and a 10-foot public waterfront walkway; board asked planner to revise language on green infrastructure, sign/mural specifics and parking before recommending the plan to borough council.
The Red Bank Planning Board voted to carry the public hearing on a rehabilitation plan for 2628 Shrewsbury Avenue and to recommend the draft plan to the borough council for adoption subject to final board review of revisions.
Planner Susan Favate of BFJ Planning walked the board through the proposal: two condominium buildings totaling 40 units on a 1.275-acre site (Block 39, Lots 30 and 31), with 6 affordable units (a 15% on-site set-aside), parking largely under the buildings using tandem spaces, and a proposed 10-foot public walkway along the Swimming River. Favate framed the project as a rehabilitation-plan application under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law (LRHL), noting that rehabilitation—unlike redevelopment—does not permit tax pilots or eminent domain but still functions as a site-specific zoning tool.
Board members concentrated their questions on design and public-access details. They pressed for elevation views that show how the new buildings would read from the bridge and the Galleria, and they debated sign and mural limits: the current draft ties sign and mural size to the plan rendering and caps the sign at 90 square feet and the mural at 448 square feet. Several members warned that overly prescriptive, rendering-tied language in the plan could constrain the board’s review at the later site-plan stage.
Residents who spoke at the public hearing raised concerns about visual impacts, flood exposure and stormwater capacity. One resident, Peter Cavalier, said the development felt too dense for the parcel: “the project itself is just too dense for the property footprint,” and urged more consideration of riverfront access and the walkability of the proposed public way. The planner acknowledged FEMA floodplain and DEP involvement for portions of the site, said a stormwater-management plan will be required at site-plan review, and noted that the developer would be responsible for any off-site utility improvements determined necessary.
The board suggested several edits before forwarding the plan to council: replacing instances of the word "encourage" with stronger, practicable obligations (for example, require that developers use at least one of listed green-infrastructure measures where feasible), clarify that elevations showing the view toward the borough and the Galleria be submitted at site-plan review, and limit the plan’s rendering-specific language so the board retains discretion during site-plan review. The board closed the public comment period and carried the hearing to the next meeting so the planner can submit a revised draft that incorporates board and public feedback.
Next steps: the planner will coordinate changes with borough staff and return with a revised rehabilitation plan and site-plan materials; the board will then consider a final recommendation to borough council.
