Applicant seeks variances to connect 199 and 205 Broad Street and add six carriage‑house units in Red Bank

John L. Smallwood, who identified himself as the principal of 199 Broad Street LLC and 205 Broad Street LLC, told the Red Bank Zoning Board on June 18 that his plan aims to preserve two older Victorian office buildings while adding a linked conference/office connection and a six‑unit carriage house behind the buildings. “Our vision is to have a really comfortable place to work, to be able to walk to the downtown,” Smallwood said, describing restored historic fabric at 199 and proposed similar treatment at 205.

Attorney Rick Brodsky, representing the applicant, framed the filing as a combined preliminary and final site plan that would merge the two 60‑foot lots, connect the buildings with a second‑story glass bridge and add a rear building with six one‑bedroom apartments and single‑car garages. Brodsky said the application requires multiple variances and design waivers, including a D‑variance for density, relief from the minimum habitable floor area for two small units and waivers related to parking stall length and setbacks.

Key project details presented to the board included: - Six one‑bedroom or studio units in a carriage‑house at the rear; two units are shown at about 500 sq ft (the borough minimum is 600 sq ft); four units are larger. The carriage building’s ground level would include six single‑car garages. (Applicant testimony and architectural plans.) - The applicant listed the required parking as 62 spaces; with the applicable EV credit the requirement was discussed as 56. The submitted plan shows 34 on‑site spaces (28 surface spaces plus six garage spaces), producing a reported net deficiency of 22 spaces. (Site engineer testimony.) - The bridge clearance was given as 12 ft 8 in under the structure; the circulation concept converts the two existing two‑way driveways into a one‑way in/one‑way out pattern with clockwise circulation. (Engineer testimony.)

Architect Anastasia Harrison said the design intentionally aims for a residential scale for the carriage house, using brick at the base, shake siding above and restrained window openings facing rear yards. “It’s meant to feel more residential in nature as opposed to more commercial,” she said, describing pitched roofs and detailing intended to match the Victorian context.

Traffic engineer John McCormick told the board that net new peak traffic from the finished project would be small — roughly seven additional AM peak trips and nine PM peak trips — and that converting the driveways to one‑way in/out would simplify movements. He described a shared‑parking approach that leans on assigned garage stalls for tenants, on‑site surface stalls for office staff and the wider supply of on‑street parking within two blocks; he said residents would be eligible for resident parking permits. “When you talk about a couple thousand square feet of office and the six apartment units, you increase the traffic by seven trips in the morning,” McCormick said, and noted that those counts are small relative to Broad Street volumes.

Neighbors and abutters pressed the applicant and consultants on several points: the parking shortfall and where tenant and visitor vehicles would park; the potential precedent for future, denser redevelopment; the removal and replacement size of trees used for rear screening; privacy and the height of windows overlooking back yards; the location of AC units and trash enclosures; and emergency vehicle access and turning templates for large apparatus. William Hardigan, a direct abutter, asked whether removing the residential component would eliminate most variances; the applicant acknowledged that a smaller residential program (for example, four units) would reduce the number of requested variances but defended the six‑unit design as a conscious choice to create smaller, lower‑rent units with a carriage‑house aesthetic.

The board directed the applicant to supply additional materials before the next hearing: a clear calculation of building height/average‑mean height, final rear elevations, a revised landscape/planting plan showing proposed screening, locations for trash and mailboxes, and coordination documents with the fire department and traffic/safety officials (including turning templates). The applicant consented to extend the statutory time frame for board action, and the board carried the application to August 20, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. without further notice.

What’s next: the board requested the height/calculation method, clarified rear elevation drawings and evidence of meetings with fire/traffic officials. Those items were listed by the board as submission items to be available before the continued hearing on August 20.