Navesink House back before Zoning Board
Denial of expanding
facility overturned
in court; appeals filed
By john burton
Staff Writer
RED BANK — The court battle notwithstanding, the latest go-round concerning the proposed Navesink House addition began with parking.
Last week, the borough’s Zoning Board of Adjustment began the second round of hearings of the Riverside Avenue senior facility’s plan to raze a neighboring apartment building to construct a five-story addition.
That addition, as proposed, would include four floors of independent living units, underground parking and such amenities as a library, theater and dining area.
The plan, however, was opposed by residents of Riverview Towers cooperative apartment complex, 28 Riverside Ave., who feared the addition would negatively affect their quality of life.
Also objecting to the proposal were the remaining tenants of the Navesink Gables apartment complex, 36 Riverside Ave., who were facing eviction to make way for the addition.
In September 2000, the Zoning Board of Adjustments denied the application, noting some of the same concerns as the objectors in addition to maintaining that the senior facility did not meet the burden of proof showing that the benefits of the proposed project outweighed the negative.
The Navesink House appealed, and on Nov. 26, 2001, the Superior Court overturned the board’s decision, noting the senior facility’s plan constituted an inherently beneficial use under the state’s land use law.
Superior Court Judge John D’Amico Jr. remanded the matter back to the borough’s Zoning Board to reconsider two variances, one pertaining to parking and the other for the front yard setback, involving the front entrance canopy.
D’Amico also noted in his ruling that the application would be subject to reasonable conditions that the board may deem necessary.
Last month the board voted to appeal the Superior Court decision. The decision is also being appealed by the residents of Riverview Towers and Navesink Gables.
Bruce Freeman, the attorney for Riverview Towers and Navesink Gables, also filed motions to stay the eviction notice and the remanded Zoning Board hearing until the appeal is heard.
Those motions were recently denied. However, Board Attorney Kevin E. Kennedy said no demolition and construction permits will be issued until the appeal is heard.
The front yard setback, involving the canopy, was deemed "rather minor in nature" by Martin A, McGann Jr., the attorney representing the Navesink House.
The plan calls for a 34.1-foot setback, compared to the required 35 feet, according to Sean Moronski, the engineer for the senior facility.
The canopy, Moronski said, provides cover for those arriving and departing the facility.
"It’s an improvement to the property and a betterment to the surrounding area," he said.
However, on his cross-examination, Freeman asked if any thought had been given to a smaller canopy, or possibly a retractable type.
"The mandate was to make it reasonable," Freeman said.
On the parking issue, McGann began by noting the facility has struck some deals which will give it 33 off-site spaces.
Those agreements, McGann said, are for seven spaces with the Salvation Army, 20 Riverside Ave.; 10 parking spaces from John E. Day Funeral Home, 85 Riverside Ave.; seven spaces from Front Street Cleaners, 184 West Front St.; and an agreement with the borough’s Parking Utility for nine spaces.
There is also a plan for the Navesink House to lease an additional 100 parking spaces on Apple Street, Tinton Falls, for workers for the length of the construction project, McGann said.
Board member James Erving, however, added that most of these arrangements actually date back to 1996 and fail to indicate if those businesses have parking deficiencies.
"I think we need an overview," Erving said.
"All the agreements seem to have a very easy revocation clause," said board member John P. Curley.
Freeman added that the Salvation Army’s agreement allows that organization to cancel with just two weeks’ notice, without cause. The funeral home can cancel with 30 days’ notice.
"I don’t understand how you can consider that long-term arrangements," Freeman said.
Should those contracts be terminated, others would be struck, McGann said.
McGann also presented Ralph J. Orlando, an engineer who said his analysis differs with the borough’s regarding the necessary parking for the Navesink House.
Orlando said that according to his analysis, with the expansion and off-site parking, the total number of spaces for the facility will be 120, which represents an increase of 27 spaces over what is currently available and which he said would be sufficient.
Orlando said his analysis is based on the Residential Site Improvement Standard, set by the state’s Division of Codes and Standards, related to senior facilities.
By that standard, only one space is needed for every 6.9 residents, and no spaces would be required for those in the residential health care and skilled nursing care components of the facility. And only one space is really needed for the independent living units of the facility, he added.
"The RSIS standard is more realistic," Orlando said.
"The facility is currently rather well within its parking," Orlando added.
The average age for a Navesink House resident is 86, and many of those do not drive, Orlando noted.
In comparison, the borough engineer’s report states that the parking demand, based on borough ordinance, is 331 spaces with the expansion — 211 spaces more than the proposed 120.
"The municipal parking standard we’re trying to apply here may not be applicable for this use," Orlando said.
"Aren’t you asking us to base it on assumptions rather than borough requirements?" asked board Chairman Michael DuPont.
"Our procedure was to actually look at the facility," responded Orlando. "We tried to base our analysis on what was actually occurring."
Since the facility is a non-conforming use, albeit an existing one, McGann said, there really are no set criteria concerning how many spaces are required, and his engineer’s analysis is appropriate.
"There’s a basis here; this is not a wild assumption," McGann said.
This position was questioned by Freeman and Philip Haderer, the board’s engineer.
"I’m having a difficult time understanding the juxtaposition," Haderer said.
Board members told McGann they would like to hear from representatives with whom the Navesink House has the parking agreements, including a borough representative.
"I recommend you have some sort of analysis prepared," Erving said.
The application’s hearing was continued until the board’s April 4 meeting.