Developer Tells Council: Building in Red Bank "Torturous"

Roger Mumford said his plans, at least, have been noble ones.

It’s been more than a year since he was granted a use variance, and almost as long since a site plan that would essentially rehabilitate an entire block on Red Bank’s west side was approved.

But, he said, speaking before the borough’s council Wednesday night, a move that represents something of a final straw for the developer, every step in the process thus far has been nothing short of torture.

“I have been very frustrated by a process that, in my opinion, completely lacks leadership,” he said following the meeting. “My experience has been frustration at every step.”

Mumford’s plan sounds simple enough. In the area of Bridge Avenue and Cedar Street are five homes and a corner market. It’s an area of town that’s been neglected, and a lack of maintenance has several of the properties looking as close to being considered blighted as it gets in Red Bank.

He wants to tear the houses down, and build new ones in their place. The same goes for the market. There’s no plan to increase density, and, this is presumably how the man plans on making a buck, the new homes – all single-family homes just like the ones they will replace – and the new market will be significant upgrades in the neighborhood.

But, an exasperated Mumford relayed before the council, calling out borough officials and Mayor Pasquale Menna, how much of a problem the entire process has been since his site plans were approved in May of last year.

“I’m not short on experience,” the Little Silver resident told the council. “I’ve never been in an area (Cedar and Bridge) in need of so much rehabilitation because of a lack of regular maintenance.”

 Between hiring professionals to engineer plans to meet borough standards and paying associated fees that keep popping up, Mumford said he’s paid more than $200,000 just to get this project started.

When the borough told him he would need to install sprinkler systems in the homes because of concerns that a fire engine couldn’t access the properties – the homes currently located there do not have sprinklers – Mumford agreed. When the borough told him that he would have to pay for water and sewer hookups, despite the fact that he will be using existing hookups, he begrudgingly accepted.

Despite these problems, Mumford has made it his intention to move ahead with the plan. But, when it came to shelling out tens of thousands of dollars for parking permits Mumford claims aren’t used and aren’t allowed to be used, he said he had finally had enough.

The simple explanation of a convoluted issue is this: Mumford owns a building that’s part of the project and leases space to a landscaping outfit. By rule, he said, one that’s been imposed by Red Bank, the landscaping company’s workers are not allowed to park in a designated lot behind the building.

Still, Mumford said he’s been charged $23,000 for parking permits for a business that can’t even, and doesn’t, use them. He said he’s met with borough officials who have assured him he would get that money back. Menna, he said, has told him that it’s a sure thing.

Officially, the borough says he owes $6,000 more.

“I’m not asking for a tax abatement,” he said, pressing the council and saying he would not pay the additional money and wanted a refund on what has already been paid. “I’m not asking for anything more than a little cooperation.”

The word from the council is, well, there’s no word yet. Borough Solicitor Dan O’Hern asked the council not to answer Mumford directly regarding the matter as it’s still being discussed behind closed doors.

Though Mumford has said his intention is to avoid litigation, his lawyer has sent a detailed letter to the borough requesting that the parking fees be refunded to his client under the threat of possible civil action.

Likely Mumford’s biggest issue is what he feels has been a lack of response from the council. He said in a conversation with Menna over the summer he was told he would get his money back.

Menna did not deny the charge, even indicating that he thought the parking fees were unfair, but did say that they came from the zoning board. Though they may seem inappropriate, he said, they are not wrongful.

“I’m sorry you feel there has been a lack of cooperation,” Menna said. “I can’t unilaterally decide to give your money back.”

Mumford’s complaints may carry more weight with the council considering the work he’s done in the borough previously. This project isn’t the first time Mumford has looked to rehabilitate west side eyesores. The developer has turned run-down properties into high-end properties in Red Bank before.

Menna acknowledged his efforts at the meeting.

“You, more so than anyone,” Menna told Mumford. “Have positively transformed that side of town.”

While he hopes that the borough refunds his money and allows the project to move forward, Mumford said he’s jaded with the way things have gone.

“This is a tough, tough place to do business,” he said.