Planning 102: Redevelopment Plans

Why Zoning Exists

Why isn’t there a drive-thru taxidermist next door? Or a 40-story tower on a narrow side street? The answer is zoning. Zoning laws are the invisible rules that shape how cities look, feel, and grow. In planning lingo, that means: uses (what goes where); density (how much); height (how tall); and bulk/setbacks (how close buildings can get to the street or property line).

Zoning is supposed to make city planning predictable and fair. Everyone plays by the same rules. But sometimes, the rules get rewritten—sometimes quietly.

In Asbury Park, it’s often with barely even a whisper.

What is a Redevelopment Plan?

A Redevelopment Plan is a special set of rules that replaces the regular zoning code for a specific area. If zoning is supposed to make city development predictable, redevelopment is where predictability goes out the window. These plans are meant to help revitalize neighborhoods or sites where standard zoning isn’t working—where a different set of tools is needed to attract investment.

That’s the idea, at least.

In practice, Redevelopment Plans are often used to fast-track big changes, bypass the normal rezoning process, and minimize meaningful public engagement. To make development more appealing, these plans often allow increased density (more units), taller buildings (greater height), and more intense land uses (a drive-thru taxidermist, for example).

In Asbury Park, the Waterfront Redevelopment Plan—adopted in the 1990s—is the most well-known example. It replaced the city’s standard zoning across the entire oceanfront with a custom set of rules, reshaping the area parcel by parcel for decades. But that’s just one of many.

For a town its size, Asbury Park has an extraordinary number of designated redevelopment areas—many passed or amended in recent years.

It’s clear that Asbury Park is an attractive place to develop—it’s a special place. So why does the City still rely on redevelopment law to incentivize projects? Because the existing zoning doesn’t match the market. In other words, the current zoning regulations are too restrictive to allow the kinds of development the City Council feels are acceptable under redevelopment law.

This is a recipe for unpredictability.

Instead of updating the zoning code to facilitate predictable development, the City keeps reaching for redevelopment power. That decision has consequences—both for the city’s physical form and for public trust in how decisions get made.

Figure X shows a map of Asbury Park and all the current areas governed by special redevelopment plans.

How Are Redevelopment Plans Created?

Asbury Park does redevelopment differently than most other places. Decades ago, the City designated the entire municipality as an “Area in Need of Rehabilitation”—a broad, little-used label under New Jersey redevelopment law. That sweeping move gives the City Council the power to adopt Redevelopment Plans for any site, at any time, without first having to prove the site is “in need of redevelopment.”

Let that sink in: the entire city has been pre-cleared.

What does that mean in practice? The Council can effectively rewrite zoning for a single lot—with no formal findings, no public process beyond a standard Council meeting notice, and no requirement for Planning Board review beyond a quick check for “consistency” with the Master Plan.

That review is advisory—and often ignored.

This setup isn’t just unusual. It’s a system that enables inconsistency. Rather than update the zoning code citywide, the Council can sidestep it altogether, approving one-off deals that chip away at predictability and public trust.

But this isn’t how redevelopment is supposed to work.

Under New Jersey law, redevelopment follows a specific process. First, the Planning Board studies whether a defined area meets the criteria for being “in need of redevelopment”—typically based on signs of distress like vacancy, blight, or economic underuse. If the Board agrees, the City Council (as the Redevelopment Authority) can adopt a Redevelopment Plan for that area. Before adoption, the Planning Board reviews the plan for consistency with the City’s Master Plan, but this review is only advisory. The final decision lies with the Council.

The table below shows the difference between how redevelopment is supposed to work—and how it’s actually used in Asbury Park.

Is Public Participation Required?

Sort of. All Redevelopment Plans in New Jersey must be adopted by the City Council, and all City Council meetings are open to the public. That’s the legal baseline. But there’s no requirement for special public outreach—not to nearby residents, not to neighborhood groups, not even to the Planning Board, beyond asking for a consistency review.

In Asbury Park, the City has adopted a policy of notifying property owners within 200 feet when a Redevelopment Plan is on the agenda. But that’s a local choice, not a state requirement—and it’s not set in stone.

At a recent public meeting, Deputy Mayor Quinn openly questioned whether that kind of notification was necessary at all. Mayor Moor, to his credit, has continued to insist that the City provide notice for any redevelopment-related hearings.

So yes, the public is technically allowed to participate. But there’s a big difference between being allowed to comment at a Council meeting and being part of a real public process. When redevelopment is used as a workaround for zoning reform, public input becomes a box to check—if it’s checked at all.

What should be a community conversation often turns into a closed-door decision, presented as a done deal. Future articles will explore the differences between true community engagement and transparency.

To sum it all up: Redevelopment isn’t inherently bad. When used properly, it can help cities revitalize struggling areas and guide thoughtful reinvestment. But in Asbury Park, what was meant to be the exception has quietly become the rule. Site-specific redevelopment plans have replaced zoning reform, public engagement is often minimal, and long-term planning has taken a back seat to short-term dealmaking. Future Planning Matters articles will explore how this shift has led to inconsistent outcomes across neighborhoods—and how the City’s approach to “public input” often confuses basic transparency with true engagement.

As residents, we deserve a planning process that prioritizes fairness, clarity, and a shared vision for the city—not just zoning by workaround