Susan from BFJ Planning outlined the area in need of redevelopment, which included the Red Bank train station, surface parking, rail yard, and several privately owned parcels. The study’s findings revealed various issues such as underutilization of parking, drainage problems, and environmental contamination, particularly on the DPW property. The presentation also noted the existence of billboards and auto storage, which were seen as problematic uses within the area. The study’s property ownership breakdown showed New Jersey Transit as the largest property owner, followed by Denholtz Properties, the borough’s DPW property, Count Basie Theater, and a small privately owned property. The area’s assessed value was estimated at $13.5 million, contributing approximately $110,000 in tax revenue.

The potential for redevelopment was a central discussion point, with the train station area being crucial in Red Bank’s planning strategy. The borough’s efforts to reestablish its Transit Village designation were mentioned. The presentation concluded with an overview of the next steps, which included the creation of a redevelopment plan to establish development standards for the area.

During the Q&A session, the board and the public engaged with Susan on various aspects of the study. Questions and comments were raised about the study’s findings and the potential redevelopment of the area. The public’s input was limited to a five-minute speaking period per person.

The board’s discussion also delved into the criteria for determining areas in need of redevelopment, as outlined by the state statute. There was a analysis of these criteria and debate over whether certain properties met the standards required. The need for a conservative assessment was stressed, with most properties meeting at least one criterion, particularly Criterion D, which relates to site conditions. However, Block 41 Lot 8 was specifically mentioned as not recommended for the redevelopment designation.

The possibility of engaging an Urban Design Architecture Firm for the redevelopment plan was considered, which would involve community engagement and plansning for various development aspects, including land use and affordable housing. Additionally, the potential expansion of the study to include adjacent areas was suggested.

Susan clarified to the board that their role was to determine if the properties met the redevelopment criteria and that the authority for designation lay with the council. During public comments, concerns about the redevelopment plan and its outcomes were voiced, including the need to maintain parking spaces. Debates ensued over the interpretation of the criteria and the board’s role, with further discussions on the impact of designating properties as areas of redevelopment.

The potential impact of a Redevelopment designation on the town was debated, with discussions on whether it would allow the borough more control over design and zoning. Concerns about the loss of ethnic and economic diversity due to ongoing development led to a debate on increasing the affordable housing set-aside, potentially up to 40%. The trade-offs, such as increased building density, were also considered. The designation was clarified as not a forceful measure for property development.