Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Red Bank refers 26–28 Shrewsbury Ave. site to planning board for rehabilitation review ahead of proposed development
Loading...
Summary
The council voted to refer a proposed rehabilitation designation for Block 39 Lot 31 (26–28 Shrewsbury Ave) and adjacent Block 1 Lot 1 to the planning board after a staff presentation about a developer proposal for low-rise residential units, waterfront access and a limited five-year tax abatement for improvements.
The Red Bank Borough Council voted to refer a proposed designation of Block 39 Lot 31 (26–28 Shrewsbury Ave) and nearby Block 1 Lot 1 as areas in need of rehabilitation to the borough planning board for review.
Shauna, the borough’s director of community development, told the council the referral (Resolution 25-183) responds to a developer’s interest in a low-rise mixed rental and for-sale project at 26–28 Shrewsbury Ave. She said the developer agreed to create a public access easement to the waterfront and to pay for construction of a small riverwalk. Shauna explained the statutory "area in need of rehabilitation" tool is intended to encourage investment in underutilized sites and that an affirmative planning-board recommendation would allow the borough to prepare a redevelopment plan and offer, in some cases, a limited five-year tax abatement on improvements.
Council members sought clarification during a question-and-answer period. The manager and Shauna emphasized the five-year tax abatement applies to improvements at the 26–28 Shrewsbury Ave site, not to a separate, temporary parking arrangement tenants at Colony House were using; temporary parking proposals would not qualify for the abatement. Caller Craig Dolan asked whether the abatement might instead apply to the parking-lot conversion, and borough officials responded the abatement was tied to the redevelopment improvements at the Galleria-adjacent parcel.
Members of the public attending the meeting raised environmental and contamination concerns tied to other local projects during public comment, and one speaker cited potential toxics (PCBs, historical industrial discharges) that could be disturbed by trenching during large construction operations — a public-safety and environmental concern the council said would be addressed through planning- and permitting processes.
By referring the matter to the planning board, the council initiated the formal review process but took no final zoning or redevelopment action at the meeting; the planning board will evaluate whether the site meets statutory criteria and return a recommendation to the council for any subsequent decisions.
