Hotel Height a Source of Planning Confusion

An application before the from a developer looking to build a Hampton Inn and Suites along the Navesink River on an acre of land was carried into next year after concerns than the building’s height may require a use variance from the borough’s zoning board.

According to the borough’s zoning code, a structure built between the river and the road can be no taller than 50 feet. The proposed six-story, 76-room hotel would be approximately 80 feet tall. The issue, apparently overlooked until just recently, was presented by a planner working on behalf of Stephen Mitchell, a Red Bank resident suing to stop the project. When confronted with the ordinance, the developer and his counsel asked that the application be carried in order to come up with an appropriate response.

The issue, if the developer fails to provide an accurate explanation of why his hotel is exempt from the height restriction, would put the application in jeopardy, at least for the time being as it would become a zoning issue rather than an issue to be ruled on by the planning board.

Attorney Martin McGann, representing builder Larry Cohen and RBank Capital LLC, said he asked for the application to be carried because of the short notice with which the objection was submitted. In a powwow with the developer’s professionals following the meeting, McGann said he’s confident they’ve already found a solution to the problem that will appease the board.

“He (Mitchell’s attorney Ron Gasiorowski) raised a very technical point and I think we’re prepared to address it,” he said. “The way we analyzed it originally, we thought we were fine. I’m confident we are.”

Borough Engineer Christine Ballard seemed noticeably surprised by the unearthing of the heretofore-unknown ordinance, which eluded, until now, the borough, the developer, and possibly even Mitchell’s team – that is if they weren’t holding onto the information to use as a trump card.

The primary reason for carrying the meeting is the confusion over the ordinance, which fails to outline, specifically, how and why a maximum height of 50 feet is arrived at. The measurement, theoretically, involves the proposed hotel’s distance from both the river and the adjacent roadways, which bookend the parcel of land. Another issue is the developer’s request for about 20 variances, including front, side, and rear yard setbacks, which could change how height is measured in relation to the hotel’s distance from the river and road.

McGann declined to say what the developer’s solution to the problem could be. Gasiorowski hoofed it out of borough chambers after pointing out the ordinance without providing much in the way of context, either.

This is just another delay in an application process that has taken months and been, at times, delayed because of a variety of issues, including the introduction of the lawsuit and the board’s failure to notify the public one occasion, among other curious stumbling blocks. The application process has even taken on the feel of a courtroom drama with a bloviating Gasiorowski providing cross-examination with flair, at times frustrating not only the developer and his professionals with challenges about minute details, but the board as well.

Mitchell is suing to stop the development because, as he’s said, the proposed hotel is far too big for the small plot of land it’s destined for. The developer has countered by saying the hotel would not only help remediate a former gas station site but would also provide a valuable ratable to the borough.

The discussion resumes at the board’s Jan. 18, 2012 meeting.

Check out the Hampton Inn and Suites topic page where you'll find every story concerning the proposed development.