The most critical discussion centered on the redevelopment plan for a property on Springwood Avenue, presented by John Marmura from Interfaith Neighbors. The project, which had undergone substantial revisions since its initial presentation in June, aimed to address previous concerns by eliminating the Early Childhood learning space. The revised plan now focuses on commercial tenant space that complies with the Springwood Avenue Redevelopment Plan, simplifying the layout and improving access for residents.

Marmura highlighted several key changes, including the restoration of parking spaces from 18 to 20 due to the elimination of three curb cuts, and the reduction of elevators. He also addressed additional stormwater management information provided after initial engineering reports, noting that while the updates were technical, they were crucial for the project’s viability. This led to a detailed presentation by project architect Paul McEvoy, who reiterated the adjustments made to enhance safety and accessibility.

The board’s concern about stormwater management was a focal point, particularly regarding a subsurface infiltration basin designed to collect water from the roof and parking lot. The board’s engineer expressed apprehensions about the proximity of this basin to the seasonal high water table, fearing it might inundate the city’s infrastructure. The applicant had submitted necessary documents ten days before the hearing, as part of two submissions dated August 5 and August 30. The board emphasized the need for the design to fully comply with state regulations, including preparations for potential flooding scenarios.

Further testimony came from Charles Herer Jr., vice president of the Asbury Park Museum. He detailed the museum’s mission to preserve the history of Asbury Park, focusing on the cultural contributions of the West Side community. Herer emphasized that the planned museum space would serve as a community hub, featuring artifacts and interactive exhibits about the area’s rich musical heritage, including genres like ragtime, jazz, and gospel music. He stressed the urgency of the project and expressed confidence in securing funding through corporate sponsorships and grants.

In another significant agenda item, the board discussed a construction project adjacent to the Turf Club. The project team outlined adjustments to the building’s positioning, moving it 5 feet 8 inches from the property line to create a clear space of 6 feet 2 inches. This modification aimed to prevent complications for both their construction and that of the Turf Club. The discussion included the design details and public art installations, although final approval for art plans remains pending.

A procedural oversight allowed members to ask questions of the initial witness before moving forward.

The board reviewed landscaping options for the proposed townhome project on Block 4306, Lots 1 through 8, presented by APW Redeveloper and Asbury Partners. The project involves 45 townhomes and sought preliminary and final major site plan approval, minor subdivision approval, and certain design exceptions. The architectural style aims to reflect the contemporary Oceanside character of Asbury Park, with materials such as shingle style lap siding and board and batten cladding. The design includes larger windows and a varied color palette to create a dynamic facade.

Concerns were raised about the treatment of prominent facades and the inclusion of features like pergolas to enhance corner presence. Setbacks for buildings varied between five and ten feet, with the central building repositioned to face Kingsley for better visibility. Parking arrangements included 114 spaces, exceeding the requirement of 68. All garages would be equipped for electric vehicle charging, addressing sustainability goals.

Public comments highlighted concerns about the project’s impact on neighboring properties, particularly regarding building heights and visibility. Questions about vehicle access, trash pickup, and snow removal were noted but not deeply covered, prompting the board to schedule continued discussions for September 23rd.

In addressing the requirements for street trees, the board debated the necessity of planting additional trees or providing monetary contributions as stipulated by the ordinance. The plan initially proposed ten trees, but space constraints led to discussions about planting eight trees on-site. The feasibility of planting on Avenue A was questioned due to limited space and urban environment challenges.