All right, we're ready. Good evening. Welcome to the Clark Township Planning Board meeting Thursday, August 7, 2025. In compliance with the open public's meeting public meetings act chapter 231 PL1975 adequate notice of this meeting has been
provided by mailing the annual scheduled meetings to the star ledger union county local source union county hall and tap into the clerk by posting such annual meeting schedule on the bulletin board and town hall reserve for such announcements and by the proper filing of said notice with township clerk.
Formal action may be taken at this meeting. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must always be maintained. I'm
going to take attendance Mayor Albanese Mr. here councilomani Mr. Cotch here Mr. Triola here Mr. Alman Mr. Steinberg here Mr. Pricado, Mr. Oransio, Mr. Gri here.
Mr. Cruz, and Mr. Ricky and can we stand for the pledge of allegiance? Has everyone had a chance to review the minutes of the July 10th meeting? Any questions, comments? Seeing none, I
make a motion to approve those minutes. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mike. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Minutes are accepted. All correspondence to the board is available at town hall for the public to preview at their leisure. Um as such I
make a motion to dispense with the reading the correspondence. Have a second. Thank you Lance Mike. All in favor? I I opposed. It's approved. Site plan application memorialization
dish management LLC 211 Westfield Avenue block 77 lot 10. I may has everyone had a chance to review the document. Any question, comments on it? Hearing none, I make a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Second.
Thank you, Mike. All the roll call. Second. Mike. Mr. Alwick. Yes. Mr. Cotch. Yes. Mr. Triola. Yes. Mr. Steinberg. Yes. Mr. Gri, yes.
Resolution Ordinance 25-25, master plan substantial consistency review. Do you want to give a little overview of that for us? Uh, sure. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um the township adopted a redevelopment
plan uh originally April 4th, 2019 that that attempted encourage revitalization of the former property on Westfield Avenue. What's being proposed this evening is a revision an amendment to
that existing document that stated July 14th, 2025. And as this board is aware, anytime an ordinance redevelopment plan is a form of an ordinance land use ordinance is proposed by the mayor and council, it is
referred to this board for what's ref commonly referred to as a consistency determination. And just to read quickly in a um summarize from the statute, it's section 4055D-26 requires that the planning board shall
make a report within 35 days, including any provision in the development regulation which are inconsistent with the master plan and any recommendations concerning those inconsistencies and any other matters that the board deems
appropriate. So ultimately at the end of um when I provide the this uh some additional information to the board, we'll be looking to see for the board to make a finding on whether you agree with my opinion as to any inconsistencies
with the master plan. The the changes to the document um um largely consist of um maybe just a summary change which discusses the inclusion. Um the main change is the inclusion of
the bank property which is located at I should give you the address here. Um one second here, sir. Located at 56 Westfield Avenue which adjoins the former AMP property on Westfield Avenue. You're going to say something.
Yeah, I apologize for interrupting you. Uh but the the standard for what you're being asked to uh review tonight also is found in the uh local redevelopment and housing law. And that standard is found
in NJSA 48 colon uh 12A-7 uh D. And that says prior to the adoption of a redevelopment plan or revision or
amendment there too, the planning board shall transmit to the governing body within 45 days after referral a report containing the recommendation concerning the redevelopment plan. The report shall include and identify any provision in the proposed redevelopment plan which
are inconsistent with the master plan and recommendations concerning these inconsistencies any matters that the board deems uh appropriate. So it's it's essentially the same standard but uh Mr. Ricky relied upon the traditional
municipal land use law verbiage and standard. Uh this is from the redevelopment law and that is what applies here because this is a redevelopment plan that has been referred to the count uh to the planning board by the council for review. So I I thank you. You caught you caught me
there. Um well in terms of the redevelopment plan um it includes the bank property as when that was reviewed when the board recommended that the bank property that adjoins the the former AMP property met
the qualif met the criteria and this board recommended that it be deemed an area of redevelopment. So now as part of the the redevelopment plan uh block 105 lot 1.01 01 at 56 Westfield Avenue would be
included in the redevelopment plan. And the amendments to the redevelopment plan are in addition to its inclusion uh would result in in increasing the allowable building coverage from 80 to 85%. um that the density would increase from
40 units per acre to 63 units per acre and that would allow for 140 units and 21 of those would be a minimum of 21 of those would be uh affordable units. The plan also
anticipates angled parking improvements within the the Joseph Street and Broadway right of way that would assist in providing parking for the non-residential components of the redevelopment plan um moving forward. So
those are the the that's the crux um of the changes and we can maybe talk about that more in a moment. In terms of the master plan, I looked at the master plan um going back to to 2003. Um it was that 2003 master plan that
recommended the creation of a downtown village district. That's the the district that runs along Westfield Avenue uh essentially from the Rawway line to approximately the location of the CVS. And we talked about this recently uh in terms of the township's
affordable housing plan. And I'll I'll bring that up at the end, but the district was created in 2004. When the township re-examined its master plan in 2010, the master plan found that and recognized that little activity in
the area occurred and that the township should consider additional measures to spur new investment in that in that time. And and it's it stated this included an increase in density. Um, in 2013, the master plan
re-examination focused on the former US Gypsum site, which is now Clark Commons. However, it did recommend the use of the redevelopment powers in the DTV district to encourage um and to spark revitalization uh as needed by the
township. And then in 2023, the the 2023 master plan rea re-examination report uh recognized the the existing redevelopment plan um consolid or coordinated and made it part
of the municipal's master plan and it recommended that the township continue to evaluate the use of redevelopment to promote the overall health, welfare and and vitality of the community. In terms of specifics as to densities and those
type of parameters, the master plan does not have that level of specificity, but it was clear that this is an area where it wanted to encourage revitalization and and growth in the township. the 2025
housing plan, uh, which is the township's round four housing plan, which builds upon the township's round three housing plan, anticipated a total of 101 affordable housing units in the DP district that I just described. In
addition to that, it included the AMP site. while it's largely located or or um it's was historically part of the DT district that was replaced with the redevelopment area anticipated 18 units
or in total 119 affordable units at that location. To date, um the the former approval that was not built at the AM would have included 12 affordable housing units. uh six affordable housing units were approved at 2729 Westfield
Avenue just across the street which are commonly referred to as the Kota track there. Um and then there's the potential for an additional two units at 175 181 Westfield a the office building um that's owned by Prasad near the the the
CVS which totals approximately 20 units. Um the the redevelopment here seeks to add the vacant bake property that would help um assist the township in meeting its affordable housing obligation. And
in this in this form, it would allow those um the increase from the 12 approved units to I said approximately 21 units. So it would advance the the affordable housing uh element of the master plan in that form. Uh, in my
review of these documents, I found there to be no inconsistencies with the the proposed u amendments um that the township council is is u is seeking. If anything, I believe that the amendments would effectuate the master
plan rather than be inconsistent with it. That's my my overall summary of my of my review. Um, I see that. I mean, yes, I see that the wording condemnation is included in this. Is this the final step
for if the town wanted to condemn the property? I'll defer the legal aspects of that to Mr. Cruz. the the previous the previous redevelopment area not including the bank property was a condemnation study. When the board took the additional study
for um the bank property that was also a condemnation study. So um if the township found it necessary to consider the use of its condemnation powers, you know, it it does have that
ability. Um my understanding is that the the developer has come back to the table and will be following a site plan to this board if if these changes are made shortly. So from at least what I've seen occurring, it does not seem that that
would be a needed step in in the short term. I agree with Mr. Ricky. Anyone else have any questions or comments? Seeing none, I make a motion to approve
ordinance 2525, master plan substantial consistency review. I have a second. Second. Thank you, Lance. Well, roll call, please. Mr. Olrich, yes. Mr. Cotch, yes. Mr. Triayola, yes. Mr. Steinberg,
yes. Mr. Bcado, I'm sorry, Mr. Gri. Yes. Okay, resolution passed. Public session. Anyone from the public wishing to come
forward and discuss any matters with this board, they may do so. As such, I make a motion to open the meeting to the public. I have a second. Second. Thank you, Mike. All in favor? Seeing no one come forward, I make a motion to close this to the public. I
have a second. Second. Thank you, Lance. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Any new business? Well, not planning board business. I'm seeing a lot of uh new cable wire going
up around town. Is something we're getting an upgrade from Exfinity or is somebody else coming in? Yeah, we um brought Altis in. So, Altise is now going to be offering and we're potentially bringing in a third. Um, I
guess about two and a half years ago, uh, when the mayor, you know, former mayor asked me to, you know, contact other providers. So, we contacted a bunch of providers. Um, and so far, Altis um, took us up on it. Verizon did
not want to take us up on it. We still have Xfinity and like I said, we may have another one. um you know fingers crossed and we'll probably know on the 18th uh by the 18th of this month. Okay. So there could be you know by the end of
the year three uh internet providers in town is Altis optimum. Yes. Thank you very much for that. You're welcome. Any old business? Seeing none, our next meeting is September 4th. October. Next meetings are September
4th, October 2nd, November 6th. I make a motion to adjurnn. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mike. All in favor? Any opposed? Meeting adjourned. to have it included for to meet the