Architect’s rendering of the proposed 76-room, six-story Hampton Inn & Suites ERIC SUCAR staff RED BANK — The Hampton Inn application has become a hot potato for the borough, whose Planning Board put a stay on the proposal at the Jan. 18 meeting and sent it to the Zoning Board for an ordinance interpretation.
The Zoning Board will make a decision on whether or not a maximum height elevation of 50 feet applies to RBank Capital LLC’s application for a hotel at the gateway to Red Bank at the foot of Cooper’s Bridge on Route 35.
Until then, the Planning Board has carried the hearing.
“A request has been made by an objector for an interpretation only on the [height] variance of the application.
“I think it’s the sense of the Planning Board as a body that it wants to do due diligence and consideration from a co-equal board to at least make an interpretation on that issue alone,” said Planning Board member Mayor Pasquale Menna.
“But at the same time we will maintain jurisdiction and not abandon it until told to do so. I see this as a stay by the board itself but not an abandonment of jurisdiction.”
Ordinance 25-10.6, which until then had gone unnoticed, was an item of contention at the Dec. 19 meeting. It includes a paragraph that states the maximum height elevation permitted is 50 feet for a property between the Navesink River and a line midway between the river and the nearest parallel roadway.
In this case, there are several roadways that fall within that scope, including Front Street, Riverside Avenue, Rector Place and Shrewsbury Avenue.
Ron Gasiorowski is the attorney representing resident/objector Steven Mitchell, as well as a mystery opponent funding Mitchell’s legal fees for a lawsuit challenging the Zoning Board and the municipality over the interpretation of existing zoning that would permit the hotel use.
Gasiorowski made the request for the Zoning Board of Adjustment to interpret the 50-foot height maximum and determine whether or not it applies to the Hampton Inn proposal.
“The real issue is that, and you can get a height variance through the Planning Board so long as it is not greater than 10 percent of the permitted height. If you’re greater than 10 percent then you have to go to the [Zoning] Board of Adjustment for a use variance or a ‘d’ variance,” explained Gasiorowski.
The proposed 76-room, six-story hotel at the foot of Cooper’s Bridge would be 82.2 feet high relative to the mean sea level, or 62 feet above the road, substantially greater than the permitted maximum height.
Gasiorowski said it was significant that the Zoning Board of Adjustment makes the interpretation because a ‘d’ variance requires five votes, not just a simple majority.
According to Gasiorowski, if the Zoning Board decides the application is subject to the terms of the ordinance, the applicant can stay with that board and apply for a ‘d’ variance, which may or may not be granted.
If the Zoning Board decides that the ordinance does not apply to the application, it would return to the Planning Board and the hearing would continue, he said.
Martin McGann Jr., attorney representing RBank Capital, argued that the Planning Board still has jurisdiction over a case even if there is pending litigation.
“My case is here. I don’t have a case before the Board of Adjustment. He [Gasiorowski] might have a case before the Board of Adjustment but that’s his case, it’s not mine. He chose the forum; he chose the Zoning Board forum, not I. I have an application here and I want to proceed,” insisted McGann.
Planning Board Attorney Michael Leckstein reaffirmed the board’s intent to carry the hearing untilMarch 5.
“We believe that it would be best if the Board of Adjustment decides that issue. Period.
If you’re not going to give us the extension, we’ll have to take action tonight,” said Leckstein.
After a brief consultation with his client, McGann reluctantly agreed to postpone the application yet again but under the condition that Gasiorowski provides notice to residents living within 200 feet of the waterfront property.
“The interpretation on this ordinance will affect every property owner in the waterfront district. Every property should be notified in the waterfront development district because this can have severe consequences on their property values,” said McGann.
“Let’s hear from those property owners, maybe that’s the appropriate thing to do here because this gentleman [Gasiorowski] is challenging an ordinance and won’t reveal to this board who is funding his application. I find it very hard to swallow the situation where someone constantly litigates against the town and doesn’t disclose who the real client is.”