Red Bank zoning board approves revised supportive‑housing project at 273 Shrewsbury Ave., 6–1

The Red Bank Zoning Board of Adjustment voted 6–1 on April 16 to approve an amended final major site plan for 273 Shrewsbury Avenue, a supportive‑housing development intended for neurodiverse adults, after hearing testimony about design changes forced by a county right‑of‑way and a required utility transformer.

Applicant attorney Mr. McKenna told the board the project originally received conditional approval in 2023 for what he described as an “inherently beneficial use” of 32 one‑bedroom units for adults with neurodiverse needs and said the scheme had drawn statewide and national attention. He said subsequent outside requirements forced design changes that prompted the revised application.

Why it mattered: the changes required to accommodate a county‑mandated curb return and a ground‑mounted transformer from Jersey Central Power & Light (JCP&L) reduced usable building footprint and altered buffer and parking calculations. Board members and professionals debated whether the changes were minor and justified by hardship or whether they required further study, particularly on parking and traffic impact.

Architect Christian Pereira said the county’s required easement removed roughly 266 square feet from the building footprint. “We lost 266 ft and rather than losing that in two units…we distribute that 266 ft in four additional units,” he testified, explaining that the design preserved core elements — stairs, elevator and floor amenities — while producing more, slightly smaller one‑bedroom units.

Engineer Jacqueline Flor explained the county required a 15‑foot curb‑return radius for sight distance at the nearby signal and that multiple meetings with JCP&L produced a ground‑mounted transformer placement the utility would accept. She told the board that the transformer’s location constrained the landscape buffer at that side of the site, reducing the previously approved buffer from about 5.1 feet to roughly 3.4 feet at the transformer location, and required removal of a street tree at that spot.

Traffic consultant John McCormack testified the borough ordinance would require 71 parking spaces for the proposed development but that two EV spaces produce a four‑space credit, lowering the ordinance requirement to 67. He said the project provides 13 assigned, gated parking spaces in the garage. “We’re providing the same 13 parking spaces that we had in the original approval,” McCormack said, and he argued demand would be low because most residents are not expected to drive.

Several board members pushed back on the lack of a formal, contemporaneous parking or traffic study for the revised proposal and noted heavy peak queues at the nearby Dr. James Parker Boulevard intersection. A member who said he voted no on the project’s prior approval remained concerned about adding a professional office that would draw visitors to a location with limited guest parking.

Use of first floor office: the applicants told the board they could not find a professional willing to serve only the small resident population, so they proposed converting the planned internal office to a separate, exterior‑access suite (about 923 square feet) that would be leased to a behavioral/psychosocial services provider; the tenant would serve residents and the surrounding community. The applicants said the office would have up to three employees who would use assigned fob access to the garage while outside visitors would park on public streets. The board imposed conditions limiting the office’s use and requiring the applicants to return for approval if the use changes.

Conditions and approvals: the board attorney read a set of conditions the board included in the approval. They require compliance with testimony, prevailing federal and state regulations, affordable‑housing commitments from the prior approval (five units remain set aside for affordable housing), coordination with outside agencies (including county and utility approvals), compliance with the TNM Associates review letter, professional certifications before certificate of occupancy, and restrictions ensuring office visitors do not have garage access. The applicant accepted those conditions as part of the approval.

Planner Ed O’Neal, who had testified at the 2023 approval, told the board the project still meets the positive planning criteria for an inherently beneficial use and characterized the transformer requirement as an outside‑agency hardship that supports grant of variance relief.

Board action: after comments and the conditions read into the record, a motion to approve was made and seconded. The roll call produced six votes in favor and one against; the chair announced the application approved 6–1. The board scheduled no further immediate hearings on this item; a separate application for signage will be filed later.

What’s next: the approval is conditioned on the applicant obtaining required outside approvals and submitting required certifications before occupancy; the board also required the applicant to return for any expansion or change in the professional office use.

(Reporting note: quoted testimony and numeric details are drawn from the meeting record and professional testimony provided at the April 16, 2026 Red Bank Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting.)