By STEVEN VIERA
Staff Writer
RED BANK — While plans to construct a parking garage downtown took a step forward at a Borough Council meeting, residents objected to redevelopment practices that they said “didn’t smell right.”
The Borough Council voted to accept the Planning Board’s recommendation to designate the White Street parking lot and the vacant lot at 55 W. Front St. as an area in need of redevelopment as well as initiated a procedure to designate large areas of the town as an area in need of rehabilitation at its regular meeting on July 13.
At its meeting on July 6, Red Bank’s Planning Board accepted the recommendation of CME Associates, an engineering firm, indicating that both the borough-owned White Street parking lot and the privately owned property at 55 W. Front St., which was included in the study at the request of the owners, qualified as an area in need of redevelopment under the 2013 Local Redevelopment and Housing Law.
In order for the areas to be designated in need of redevelopment, the next step would be for the Borough Council to accept the board’s recommendation.
Arguing that such important business required the input of the entire council rather than a quorum, Councilwoman Kathy Horgan motioned to table the resolution until a later meeting when her fellow Democrat, Councilman Edward Zipprich, would be present.
Mayor Pasquale Menna pointed out that Zipprich had the opportunity to participate in the meeting by phone and had simply not exercised that prerogative. With no member of the council seconding Horgan’s motion, it failed, and discussion of the resolution commenced.
“If the council goes ahead and concurs and adopts this resolution tonight, it’s really just the first step in the process,” Special Redevelopment Attorney for the Borough Andrew Bayer said.
Designation as an area in need of redevelopment would allow the Borough Council to craft ordinances and establish a vision specifically for the areas in question, which could help to facilitate the construction of a much-desired parking garage at the site of the White Street parking lot.
“Any closer we can get to a parking garage, is a win for the business community,” Executive Director of the RiverCenter James Scavone said after the meeting.
Several residents and members of the community spoke voicing their opposition to the proposed resolution, especially the inclusion of the privately owned West Front Street property in the redevelopment area.
“One of my fellow citizens described it at the time — ‘It didn’t smell right’ — and it still doesn’t smell right,” resident Steven Hecht said. “I want to urge this council to separate those two pieces of property, if in fact just because it stinks.”
Councilman Michael Whelan noted the resolution would be “a small step” and the council would retain the power to separate the White Street and West Front Street properties into two redevelopment areas.
The council voted to approve both properties as an area in need of redevelopment with Council Members Linda Schwabenbauer, Mark Taylor and Whelan — all Republicans — in favor and Horgan, a Democrat, and Council President Cindy Burnham, who is not affiliated with either party, voting against.
“[55 W. Front St.] doesn’t fit the criteria, and it’s a slippery slope. Some other developer could come forward and challenge Red Bank and sue us,” Burnham said. “It’s like spot zoning.”
Immediately following approval of the area as in need of redevelopment, the council voted on another resolution authorizing the Planning Board to determine whether or not large parts of the borough qualify as “an area in need of rehabilitation” with no explanation or details provided by the mayor or members of the council as well as no documents having been made available online or at the meeting.
Once again, all three Republican members of the council voted in favor of the resolution, with Horgan and Burhnam voting against it.
Hecht returned to the microphone at the end of the meeting and asked the council to offer details about the potential area in need of rehabilitation, and Menna called upon Director of Planning and Zoning Glenn Carter for an explanation.
Carter pointed out that an area of rehabilitation has different criteria than an area in need of redevelopment and could establish an alternate, more informal zoning process. While Carter explained that this makes the development process more efficient, several residents criticized it as allowing developers to skirt the Zoning Board.