Tarantolo: Future of downtown hinges on fort Boro accepts two options for future development BY LAYLI WHYTE Staff Writer EATONTOWN — The Borough Council went through the motions of accepting a vision plan for the downtown last week while acknowledging the future is clouded by uncertainty over the future of the real estate Fort Monmouth sits on. Mayor Gerald Tarantolo said he doesn’t believe any further action will be taken toward revitalizing the downtown until the issue of what will be done with the Fort Monmouth property is resolved. “I have indicated to our consultants,” he said, “that since we did go through this exercise, we should document what we’ve done and accept the vision plan.” Fort Monmouth abuts the redevelopment area and has been slated for closure in 2011. The plan was compiled by the Regional Plan Association (RPA) with funding from the borough as well as a Smart Growth Grant from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. RPA is an independent, regional planning organization, based in New York, which focuses on reshaping transportation systems, protecting open space and promoting better community design, according to the report. Partners in the project include the state Department of Transportation, the state Department of Community Affairs, and Townworks, an urban planning firm based in Belmar. “Our goal was to create a vision of what we think might happen,” Tarantolo said. “The project is essentially on hold at this time.” Councilman Theodore Lewis said during the council’s workshop session that although he would vote to accept the vision plan, he was concerned that the plan was vague. “I don’t know what the vision plan is,” he said, “and I’ve been a planner for 20 years.” Tarantolo said that the plan would eventually be used as a basis for redevelopment. “I just want to say on the record that we’re not committing to anything,” Lewis said. One option to revitalize the borough’s downtown could mean taking at least one resident’s home, but the vision plan accepted at last week’s Borough Council meeting is not the final word. Bernie Denegar, Lewis Street, said that he realizes that the vision plan, which was initiated by the borough more than two years ago to look into revitalizing the downtown area along Route 35, is in its preliminary stages, he just wants to be able to plan ahead in the event that the borough takes his property. “I’ve been there since 1992,” he said after the Dec. 6 council meeting. “I lived for the previous 20 years in apartments because I was in the service.” According to the vision plan, there are two consensus plans for redeveloping the downtown area, although aspects of each could be mixed and matched for a specific plan. The plans were developed by RPA by meeting with local officials, residents and business owners to discuss the future of the downtown. “A steering committee comprised of representatives of the community helped guide the planning consultants through the challenges, opportunities and constraints of the area,” the report states. “This report reflects the ideas, comments and criticisms resulting from a public process composed of numerous public meetings, including evening and Saturday sessions where people were encouraged to identify concerns and share ideas or concepts about the future of their community.” The process began in spring 2005, according to the report, and some comments were made at public planning sessions about the possibility of private, commercial and residential property being redeveloped. “Landowners and stakeholders within the study area are anxious for a clear direction to be set as soon as possible,” the report states, “because without it, they do not know how much they should be investing in their properties now — the so-called ‘planners’ blight’ phenomenon.” The report states that while most of the businesses and residences in the area are “marginal,” the mayor and council want the impact on area property owners to be minimal. “Consensus Plan 1 has three big ideas,” according to the RPA report accepted at the council meeting. “Development is limited to what can be accommodated with on-street and surface parking; the municipal complex remains in place; and Route 35 is ‘traffic calmed’ but not reconfigured.” Advantages of this plan, according to the report, are that it is less ambitious and easier to implement and would cost less. “Plan 1 could accommodate 78,400 square feet of commercial space,” the report states, “up to 278 residential dwelling units and 920 parking spaces.” Consensus Plan 2 is more involved, and would include the addition of a parking structure in the existing municipal parking lot on Lewis Street, as well as the relocation of the municipal complex to the northeast corner of Route 35 and Broad Street. “Such an ambitious plan,” the report states, “would require proactive participation by the borough to help build the parking deck and move the municipal uses, as well as expand right-of-way for a redesigned Route 35. Plan 2 could result in 93,800 square feet of commercial space, up to 420 dwelling units and 1,242 parking spaces.” Denegar said that one of the redevelopment options would put the Route 35/Broad Street jughandle through his house. The report states that regardless of the specific plan chosen for the area, Route 35 should change. “It is clear that most of the community goals cannot be achieved if Route 35 remains the regional strip highway it is today,” the report states. “Both test schemes suggest ways in which the road would have to be re-designed — from traffic calming and pedestrianization to the more ambitious suburban boulevard concept.” There is some skepticism among residents about redevelopment, and Denegar said he would prefer if the downtown remains small. “We don’t need another Red Bank,” he said.