WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=FPTnHev3pE0

Part: 1

1
00:00:23.039 --> 00:01:41.920
I don't care. Heat up here. Welcome to the Clark Township Planning Board meeting, Thursday, July 9th, 2026. This meeting is in compliance with the open public meetings act chapter 231 PL1975 as adequate notice of this meeting has

2
00:01:41.920 --> 00:01:56.960
been pre provided by mailing the annual schedule of meetings to the star ledger the leader and union county local source by posting such annual meeting schedule on the bulletin board and town hall reserved for such announcements the official website of the township hourcark.com

3
00:01:56.960 --> 00:02:13.520
in compliance with PL2025C72 effective March 1st 2026 six and the proper filing of said notice said notice formal action may be taken at this meeting. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any question or

4
00:02:13.520 --> 00:02:29.280
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 be maintained at all times. I'll roll call. Mayor Albanese >> here.

5
00:02:29.280 --> 00:02:45.040
>> Mr. Olrich >> here. Counciloman Meny Mr. Cotch >> here >> Mr. Steinberg >> here Mr. Alman >> here >> Mr. Gri >> here >> Mr. Gronowski >> here >> Mr. Gersonner >> here >> Mr. Cecil Mr. Aloni

6
00:02:45.040 --> 00:03:01.440
>> here >> Mr. Fiser >> here >> Mr. Ricky >> can we stand for the pledge of allegiance? >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands

7
00:03:01.440 --> 00:03:27.360
nation. Has everyone had a chance to read the minutes of the June 4th, 2026 meeting? Any questions or comments? Not hearing none. I make a motion to approve. Do I have a second? >> Second, >> Bill. Thank you.

8
00:03:27.360 --> 00:03:43.360
>> Thank you, Bill. All in favor? >> I >> I. >> Any opposed? All right. Correspondence. All correspondences for the planning board is available at town hall for the town or public's perview to review. As

9
00:03:43.360 --> 00:03:58.480
such, I make a dis motion dispense with the reading. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mike. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> All right. Public hearing on relevant redevelopment study presentation

10
00:03:58.480 --> 00:04:13.840
of non- condemnation redevelopment study for 191 195 199 205 Westfield Avenue also known as block 77 lots 678 and 9. >> Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm going to

11
00:04:13.840 --> 00:04:39.840
go to the uh podium. What do you think? Do I need to be sworn or or >> just do it >> just in case? >> I tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So, I'll help you grab. >> I do. >> Okay. You're sworn. >> Thank you. Um, everyone should have

12
00:04:39.840 --> 00:04:55.759
received a copy of a preliminary investigation report that I that I prepared. Uh it's entitled block 77 lot 678 and 9. That's 191 to 205 Westfield Avenue. Uh the report is uh dated June

13
00:04:55.759 --> 00:05:14.080
15th uh 2026 prepared by myself. Um I'm going to summarize the report. Um and I I prepared a PowerPoint presentation for that purpose. I think it may take me about uh 15 minutes or so to to go through the presentation. So I was going to give a an overru and a summary. I was

14
00:05:14.080 --> 00:05:30.880
going to discuss the findings of the report and then I'll just really be available to to any questions if that's okay, Mr. Chairman. Um here we have our nice cover page. Um so pictures are the the four properties um in the study area. We're just going

15
00:05:30.880 --> 00:05:47.600
to skip over the remarks. So I think this board is, you know, seen enough redevelopment studies. I know the public is here tonight, but so just so everyone is aware, the council authorizes the planning board to undertake a redevelopment study. And a redevelopment study essentially is something that like

16
00:05:47.600 --> 00:06:02.479
a planner analyzes, we lost the screen over there. The planner analyzes the conditions of a property in accordance with criteria in the local redevelopment and housing law. Um, and this report is

17
00:06:02.479 --> 00:06:20.000
is somewhat of a a technical report. If if the board finds that this area they agree with my recommendations that it qualifies as as an area in need of redevelopment, um they would send that recommendation uh to the township council at which time the township

18
00:06:20.000 --> 00:06:36.400
council may choose to create the redevelopment area and after that a redevelopment plan which would be similar to a zoning ordinance would be prepared that would indicate how the property would be used uh in in the future. So this is the the first part of

19
00:06:36.400 --> 00:06:52.960
the process. So here we have an aerial map that shows the study area. Uh it's four properties block 77 lot 6 through 9 as I said 191 to 205 Westfield Avenue. It's at the intersection of Westfield

20
00:06:52.960 --> 00:07:08.160
Avenue and Campbell Place right across the street. That's the Dunkin Donuts and the and the Quick Check in the uh and the Dairy Queen, excuse me. Um just a few uh facts. I already mentioned this. The four properties in

21
00:07:08.160 --> 00:07:25.120
total are about 0.7 acres. It's in the downtown village district. Uh each site has what was at one time uh a residential building likely single family homes initially with detached garages. Um one of the lots was um

22
00:07:25.120 --> 00:07:39.919
considered in the township's tax assessment b uh database as commercial. Um, one property also had a commercial element to it in the back at one point that's been vacated. Uh, but originally the buildings were uh residential

23
00:07:39.919 --> 00:07:56.000
buildings. Uh, of importance here is that uh this is the area of the township where the township has agreed with the fair share housing center to provide uh 51 units of affordable housing associated with its previous round

24
00:07:56.000 --> 00:08:11.520
affordable housing obligation. the current affordable housing plan. Um it it was written as such that the town just has to provide opportunities for affordable housing to be created because of lack of vacant land. But the township

25
00:08:11.520 --> 00:08:27.120
still has an obligation under its its previous obligate uh round to provide additional affordable housing. And I'm going to go through the criteria that were considered in the report. Uh these are all the criteria under the local redevelopment and housing law. Uh we're

26
00:08:27.120 --> 00:08:44.159
going to be evaluating criteria A in associated with deterioration uh of a significant manner where a a property has an unh wholesome living or or working conditions. A criteria B which is largely associated with abandoned abandonment of commercial and

27
00:08:44.159 --> 00:09:01.760
industrial buildings. Uh in criteria D which is associated with an obsolete layout design. And finally, criteria H, which is really a a secondary criteria associated with smart growth planning principles. And I'll explain that more in a moment. I think it's important that

28
00:09:01.760 --> 00:09:16.640
I read each criteria because this is what the board is going to be evaluating whether you agree with my findings whether we meet the the standard under the law. Uh criteria A, it's the generality of buildings are substandard,

29
00:09:16.640 --> 00:09:34.160
unsafe, unsanitary, dilapidated or obsolescent or possess any such characteristics or so lacking in light, air or space as to be conducive to unh wholesome living or working conditions. Criteria B is the discontinuence of the

30
00:09:34.160 --> 00:09:51.040
use of a building or buildings previously used for commercial, retail, shopping malls or plazas, office parks, manufacturing or industrial purposes. The abandonment of such buildings or buildings, significant vacancy of such buildings or bu buildings for at least

31
00:09:51.040 --> 00:10:06.000
two consecutive years. That's the key finding. If you remember the u I guess for the old old AMP bank next door that that building was vacant for two years and met the criteria or same being allowed to fall into so great a state of

32
00:10:06.000 --> 00:10:23.360
disrepair as to be untenable criteria D areas with buildings or improvement which by reason of dilapidation obsolescence overcrowding faulty enragement or design lack of ventilation light and sanitary

33
00:10:23.360 --> 00:10:38.320
facilities, excessive land coverage, delletterious land use, or obsolete layout, or any combination of these or other factors are determined to be detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community. Here, it's two prongs.

34
00:10:38.320 --> 00:10:55.920
It's an outdated land use, and also the second prong is that it's detrimental to the community in some way. And then in my opinion the age criteria has to really be associated with another more blighted criteria. But the law actually

35
00:10:55.920 --> 00:11:13.279
has the age criteria in it that states that you can designate uh the delineate area consistent with smart growth planning principles adopted pursuant to the law. So I'm going to spend less time on that. We found that all uh all of the properties met the age criteria uh

36
00:11:13.279 --> 00:11:30.160
simply because this is your downtown village district and it's to encourage downtown village uses compact development walkable neighborhoods and the likes consistent with with your master plan. Um uh I I I make an argument in the report

37
00:11:30.160 --> 00:11:45.360
that's based on a a case out of Princeton. uh in Princeton uh there was a redevelopment study that found that surface parking lots were detrimental. They were obsolete. They were an

38
00:11:45.360 --> 00:12:02.560
obsolete layout and design and that was detrimental to their um um their their master plan and to a form of development. It was an that was needed for for their downtown to grow in a mixeduse pattern as they they they

39
00:12:02.560 --> 00:12:17.440
wish their current. I'm not I didn't do the greatest job of explaining that fully, but the point of the matter is it was those parking lots were active. They were being utilized and the like and it was upheld in court that that was an obsolete layout and design that met the

40
00:12:17.440 --> 00:12:35.440
criteria under um under the law. here. Um, Clark is in in somewhat of a a I don't want to say a difficult position, but um Clark is required to provide for 51 units of affordable housing to meet its round three affordable housing obligation specifically in the zone

41
00:12:35.440 --> 00:12:50.880
where this property uh or these properties are located and I found them to be functionally obsolete and having an unproductive pattern because of the existing I'm going to read this here. low density use consumes developable

42
00:12:50.880 --> 00:13:07.440
land and existing infrastructure capacity while producing none of the 51 affordable housing units associated with the township's 2006 housing element and fair share plan. Um and and again this is a an outstanding

43
00:13:07.440 --> 00:13:23.120
prior obligation that's tolling and this is something that the township has to uh under its obligation from the previous round provide those units or um it's for lack of a better word it's it's it's a it's problematic.

44
00:13:23.120 --> 00:13:39.279
Um here we have a prime unconstrained location. We don't have any wetlands, flood planes, any environmental hazards that are that are known. Um, and of of also of importance here, we have four properties under under common ownership.

45
00:13:39.279 --> 00:13:55.200
So, we don't have a need to assemble the property, which I believe historically has been the issue on Westfield Avenue and why you haven't been seeing the redevelopment that's permitted down there. You have a lot of small lots. Um, I mean, they're already developed. Um

46
00:13:55.200 --> 00:14:12.639
there's other reasons a as well but the ability to consolidate parcels together uh is a key aspect of this tract of lamb here to provide for uh that new housing. Um, in terms of delterious to the public welfare, I found in the report that

47
00:14:12.639 --> 00:14:28.560
continuing this pattern of of like single family homes impedes statewide smart growth favoring compact development, housing choice, infrastructure, efficiency, and mitigation or sprawl. So, I found that the entire study area uh met the

48
00:14:28.560 --> 00:14:44.880
DRiteria for for the reasons I mentioned. and just going through the the each property uh one at a time. I'll try to go through these quickly. If I'm going too fast or slow, let me know. 191 Westfield A, that's lot six. That's a

49
00:14:44.880 --> 00:15:03.680
one point, excuse me, 0.172 acre site. Uh it was assessed commercial since 1991. Um, so, um, here it had a a travel agent on it and based on just looking at I mean I I lived in town at this time. Um, just

50
00:15:03.680 --> 00:15:19.600
looked at looking at Google Street View. Um, that travel agency was discontinued between August 2007 and September 2012. It's been um it's been taxed as a

51
00:15:19.600 --> 00:15:36.720
commercial land use since 1991. And while I was at the property, it was completely vacant. So there was no the property owner indicated uh the former property owner that they were using using it for residential purposes as an apartment. U when I when I checked with

52
00:15:36.720 --> 00:15:52.240
the town, there was no record of a use variance being granted. um a use variance was granted at that time when upper floor apartments weren't permitted in 1974 but in my opinion that if it was being used

53
00:15:52.240 --> 00:16:08.480
for residential purposes it was being done so illegally. It's considered to be under the tatips records a commercial use and for that reason it's been um it's been vacant for over 14 years and for that reason it meets the B criteria

54
00:16:08.480 --> 00:16:24.800
because they don't get credit for an illegal use on the property since it's been vacant for over two years. Um and here we have some some pictures of the property. We we show um on the top left the current condition the back

55
00:16:24.800 --> 00:16:39.360
garage and you can see from the street view imagery when it was Clark Travel Agency on the bottom pictures um this is just pictures of the the outside garage the the building itself it was I mean even it's over two years it it wasn't in

56
00:16:39.360 --> 00:16:56.320
condition to be to be tenable today for commercial land use as well. Um, so lot six I believe meets criteria B. Criteria D already mentioned and criteria H. Lot seven's 195 Westfield Avenue. That's

57
00:16:56.320 --> 00:17:12.240
moving one property in. Uh, also of the same size,.1722 acres. Uh, it's a two family dwelling with a with a separate basement and upstairs units plus a detached garage and shed. Um,

58
00:17:12.240 --> 00:17:29.679
I note that although two units were uh observed, uh the township's tax assessment database indicates that um one unit should be there. Um we found there to be uh extensive disres disrepair and dilapidation concentrated

59
00:17:29.679 --> 00:17:45.200
in the basement unit. I'll show you some pictures. Um there was water damage, mold, rock, unsanitary conditions, uh consistent with a a hoarder that was living in the house when I was there. Uh and I'll show some pictures here. Um

60
00:17:45.200 --> 00:18:02.799
front and back pictures that the picture on the bottom right, that's leaking occurring um in the ceiling. And then if you see these pictures here, that picture of the refrigerator on the right, um there was it was like broken and was literally food in there for I

61
00:18:02.799 --> 00:18:19.760
don't know anywhere from 3 months to a year. She's living here. There was mold everywhere throughout the building. Um I I really tried to get in and out of there as as quick as I could. I snapped the pictures and got out of there. Someone was living there. It's um it's

62
00:18:19.760 --> 00:18:35.360
it's unsanitary. clearly meets the eight the eight criteria uh under the under the law. Also, I already mentioned the D criteria and the H criteria. Uh lot 8 is 199 Westfield A. Also the same lot size,

63
00:18:35.360 --> 00:18:51.520
two family dwelling, uh separate basement and upstairs units plus a detached garage. Um overall um we found this building to be in fair condition. Uh with the exception of the the basement having

64
00:18:51.520 --> 00:19:08.400
significant substandard conditions, water damage and mold on walls and ceilings, inadequate lighting improvised with with with work lights and cords draped around across wall ceilings and structural supports. Um picture of the front, picture of the

65
00:19:08.400 --> 00:19:24.880
back of the building, picture of the basement. Um this the bottom right the unit was in uh upper floor was in better uh condition. Here it shows the basement unit that was with its haphazard uh array in the upper right pictures the

66
00:19:24.880 --> 00:19:41.520
electrical wires um the mold and like. Um so we found this to meet the A criteria. Um the basement unit shows dilapidation apparent water damage and mold on walls and ceilings inadequate lighting improvised with work lights and

67
00:19:41.520 --> 00:19:59.600
gorge around the ceilings and walls creating unsafe unsanitary living conditions. Criteria D I already mentioned and criteria H the smart growth criteria as well. And finally, uh, lot nine. Um, again, this is 205 Westfield Avenue,

68
00:19:59.600 --> 00:20:17.360
also in the DTV district, slightly larger at 0.1825 acres. Here we had a single family dwelling. Um, with a two-story combined garage that was operating as a rear accessory dwelling unit. Um, again, at one point

69
00:20:17.360 --> 00:20:34.880
that was a commercial awning company. So it's uh I mean again I think there was some uh additional activity going occurring out there that was wasn't approved. I was able to verify that the awning business was a legitimate

70
00:20:34.880 --> 00:20:52.080
business under the township's uh regulations. However, that that accessory dwelling unit I could not come to find any records um that it was a legal um use of that rear area. And just a few pictures. Um you can see

71
00:20:52.080 --> 00:21:07.360
in the bottom picture there's a there's a walk in the bottom right picture in the back center. Uh that's a staircase to the upper level. Um you know the basement you know there was just a lot of storage going on in there and the like.

72
00:21:07.360 --> 00:21:24.720
Um but in in this case we found it just to meet the D criteria that we mentioned already the smart growth criteria and the A criteria was not satisfied. Um here um when I spoke previously about the the age criteria um I just wanted to

73
00:21:24.720 --> 00:21:40.400
mention that it's my opinion that that can only be attached to another blighted criteria because it it talks to really a forwardlooking type of criteria that you're going to be uh providing a smart growth form of development compact walkable development which this area is

74
00:21:40.400 --> 00:21:57.600
in terms of your downtown district. So really in summary, um, lot six we had met the B, D, and H criteria. Lot seven met the A, D, and H criteria. Lot eight met the A, D, and H criteria. And lot

75
00:21:57.600 --> 00:22:12.480
nine met the D and H cr criteria. I can I can go through the summary of what I just said. Um, but essentially that's that's that's my summary and findings of the full report. >> Thank you.

76
00:22:12.480 --> 00:22:30.240
Um, regarding the D criteria, is it primarily due to the town's requirement to give affordable housing to increase density along this stretch? And that's why it's no longer really applicable be single or

77
00:22:30.240 --> 00:22:45.840
even two family housing. >> In this context, I I I believe it meets the meets the criteria under under the Princeton case here. This is something I I'll be frank. It's uh I don't I don't think this has been litigated what I'm presenting here. I believe it meets the criteria under the Princeton case

78
00:22:45.840 --> 00:23:01.360
though. You can ask your attorney if he agrees with me or not, but I believe it meets it. >> Um I have no questions. Anyone on board have any questions? >> As such, I'd like to open the meeting to the public for any questions for the

79
00:23:01.360 --> 00:23:18.480
report that was just given. I have a second. >> Second. >> Second. Take your mic. All in favor? >> I. Anyone from the public wishing to come forward to ask questions regarding this report, please do so. Please state your name and address.

80
00:23:18.480 --> 00:23:36.080
Downing residence. >> Hi, my name is Mike Decker. I'm a resident on Prescott Turn just off of Westfield Avenue. I don't really have any questions. I I I appreciate the presentation. I think it was very um very helpful. I'm really up here tonight in reference to the Westfield Avenue redevelopment as a whole for what's

81
00:23:36.080 --> 00:23:57.840
going on in Westfield Avenue. that would be appropriate towards the end of the meeting. We're going to have public comments on any issue. This is specifically to the report. >> Okay, fair enough. >> Good evening, John Grie from Clark. Um I had um some questions. So, one of the things that happens with the area of

82
00:23:57.840 --> 00:24:13.919
redevelopment is that's a initial step in authorizing a pilot tax abatement for 30 years, >> right? >> Um, >> it's a requirement for that. >> It's it's not it's if if a pilot if if

83
00:24:13.919 --> 00:24:30.880
if an area is is ultimately designated, the town can offer a pilot. It's not automatic. The council has to make a determination whether they believe a pilot should be offered. >> Yes. But it's a it's the first it's a it's an underlying requirement for a

84
00:24:30.880 --> 00:24:46.880
pilot to occur. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, one of the questions I I basically have is is we have I I recognize that these properties are not, you know, in great shape, but we have properties right around it that are not areas of redevelopment that are being

85
00:24:46.880 --> 00:25:02.320
developed right now. That's why are we doing this when a developer could just buy them and develop them? >> Well, you really have to ask that to the council. I'm asked to study the properties. >> Okay. >> Council authorizes the study plan. I I entertain the study. I give my report my

86
00:25:02.320 --> 00:25:18.159
findings. But you want to ask why >> it's it started with the council. It's I'm not really the person to answer that. >> Okay. And then one other thing that I was curious about is um oftentimes when there's the um redevelopment areas, um I know that there's an ordinance on the

87
00:25:18.159 --> 00:25:37.440
books for multi-unit dwellings where 20% of the dwellings have to be set aside for affordable housing, but I've seen that other redevelopment areas get a reduction in that amount to about 15 or 16%. um is this designation going to um make

88
00:25:37.440 --> 00:25:52.400
that happen where because it's supposed to help with affordable housing and then the threshold the amount of set aside seems like it might end up being lower and I feel like that's kind of counterintuitive. All right. To to to answer your question, if you read you read the zoning ordinance also, you're

89
00:25:52.400 --> 00:26:06.880
you're one of the other one people one of the few that have read the zoning ordinance. So I guess I commend you for that. But under the previous round three obligation, towns could have designated largely between 15 and 20%. So you see

90
00:26:06.880 --> 00:26:23.919
some areas in Clark it's 15 or 16, in some it's 20. That's because it's a previous obligation. Under the current fourth round rules, the way the law was written, when affordable housing is being provided, anytime you have five units or more, at least 20 20% would

91
00:26:23.919 --> 00:26:39.600
have to be set aside. And that's and that's >> matter of law that would apply to this and that's can't be changed. That's just that's the law. >> Okay. And then the the final question I have is, you know, things look not great in those properties. Um, I fully understand that and I I do want to see

92
00:26:39.600 --> 00:26:56.320
that area get better, but I guess so it I don't know if it's necessarily you might have the answer, but you know, um, it seems like there's probably code violations and things that maybe the town should have been on the owner to fix prior to this. What happened to get

93
00:26:56.320 --> 00:27:11.279
it to this point? And why didn't we because it feels like if that would have happened in the previous years, maybe things wouldn't have gotten to this point. And I I know you may not know all the answers to that. I mean, I I understand your point, but when when I do the study, I I study the property the

94
00:27:11.279 --> 00:27:27.200
day that I'm I'm asked to study it. So, the condition is the condition when I study it, and that's what I report. So, that's how it got there. And you can post blame or not, but >> I have to report the conditions that exist. >> Understandable. All right. That's all I had. Thank you so much.

95
00:27:27.200 --> 00:27:55.120
>> Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward to ask questions regarding this report, please do so. Say your name and town residence Collins Clark. Um, I appreciate all that you do for this because I know that's your job, but you really seem to delve

96
00:27:55.120 --> 00:28:13.200
into a lot of things that the ordinary citizen would not know. Um the question I have was okay the question I have was similar to the prior last question. Um, can you may

97
00:28:13.200 --> 00:28:29.039
not have this answer and it may be for the general questions at the end, but say somebody else down in the development area, the downtown village area decides to let their property go

98
00:28:29.039 --> 00:28:46.120
like these properties have gone. Is is that something that >> that question isn't specific to the report? Please keep it specific to his testimony. >> Okay. Well, >> or the report. You can ask that question as a general question later. >> Okay. Thank you.

99
00:28:47.919 --> 00:29:05.760
>> Anyone else wishing to come forward to comment on the report we just heard? >> Any questions or comments from the board? Do I have a motion to approve this? >> Oh, first close. Close public. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I make a motion to close

100
00:29:05.760 --> 00:29:21.279
to the public. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Lance. All in favor? >> I >> I. >> And you have a uh motion for a resolution to adopt a resolution recommending that the property be designated uh recommending to the

101
00:29:21.279 --> 00:29:37.520
council that the property be designated an area needed redevelopment. Yeah, >> you you have before you a resolution um recommending to the council that the property be designated an area in need of redevelopment for the reasons uh in

102
00:29:37.520 --> 00:29:53.440
the uh our planner's report. So that that would be the motion to adopt that resolution. Thank you councelor. Has everyone had a chance to review that resolution? Any questions or comments on it? As such, do I have a motion to approve

103
00:29:53.440 --> 00:30:17.760
or deny the resolution? >> Make a motion. >> Lance, you make a motion to approve. I second. >> Lance. >> I second it. Now take a roll call. >> Mayor Albanese. >> Yes. >> Mr. Olrich. >> Yes.

104
00:30:17.760 --> 00:30:33.840
>> Mr. Cotch. >> Yes. >> Mr. Alman, >> yes. >> Mr. Steinberg, >> yes. >> Mr. Gri, >> yes. >> Mr. Gronowski, >> yes. >> Mr. Gersonner, >> yes. >> Mr. Aloni, >> yes. >> Resolution passed. >> Thank you. At this point, I'd like to

105
00:30:33.840 --> 00:30:50.240
open the meeting to the public for any questions or comments they may have before the board. I make such a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mike. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Anyone wishing to address this board, please state your name. Come forward. State your name and town of

106
00:30:50.240 --> 00:31:13.039
residency. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Mike Decker. I'm a resident on Prescott Turn just off of Westfield Avenue. Uh as I said before, uh I'm up here tonight in reference to the Westfield Avenue redevelopment in general. Uh when we're studying redevelopment, we all know that

107
00:31:13.039 --> 00:31:30.159
um you know, we do traffic studies and we know that individual developer traffic studies often project negligible impacts usually when you look at things individually, but we know that the reality on the ground often tells us a different story when we look at the larger picture. Um with Westfield

108
00:31:30.159 --> 00:31:46.320
Avenue, it's a major traffic artery for our community. Um, when I'm walking to Dairy Queen with my kid, uh, or when I see like the neighborhood kids from ALJ or Mother Seat, uh, you know, they're doing a quick check. They're going to Dairy Queen.

109
00:31:46.320 --> 00:32:03.679
They're it's a very big, very, uh, popular area in town. And, uh, we know theoretical data from traffic studies often doesn't do justice the very real danger of a gridlocked multi-use thoroughfare. Uh we have a lot of compounding pro uh

110
00:32:03.679 --> 00:32:19.519
projects now on Westfield Avenue. We have the new CVS where Bernie's Auto used to be. We have the new uh daycare center that's getting built by uh the old Emma King house. Um I'm hearing I heard a rumor on on Facebook. I think they're going to

111
00:32:19.519 --> 00:32:34.720
they're looking at maybe Dunkin Donuts is going to get redeveloped. We have this project going on. Um, I think we're going to see uh continued heavy reliance on street parking, which is a concern because, you

112
00:32:34.720 --> 00:32:51.120
know, the line of sights are are going to be crazy now with kids trying to cross the street. You know, you have people in their cars trying to navigate the heavy traffic. I'm sitting in it every day. Um, and I would just ask that when we look at other next steps for redevelopment

113
00:32:51.120 --> 00:33:07.919
that we can include rigorous, real world comprehensive pedestrian safety audits. Uh, I'm really concerned about a kid or somebody getting waffled on that street there. Um, Westfield Avenue right now is already very congested. I again I sit in that traffic every day and I'm a cop by

114
00:33:07.919 --> 00:33:23.519
trade and I know firsthand that localized bottlenecks uh do cause problems with instant response time. Uh, I know that um trying to respond during emergencies is a major concern and I would urge the

115
00:33:23.519 --> 00:33:39.679
board to coordinate closely with police and fire resources to model cumulative effects of all these simultaneous developments on emergency vehicle access before we greenlight any additional redevelopment projects. I think it's a major concern for I know it's a it's a

116
00:33:39.679 --> 00:33:55.360
concern that a lot of my neighbors are are have been talking about on Prescott and in the greater Westfield Avenue area. Um and I listen I understand the pressure you guys are under. We have affordable housing mandates understandably. We we uh we need to see development in this town. I'm glad we're

117
00:33:55.360 --> 00:34:10.720
doing it but it feels like we're doing everything kind of peace meal and we're not looking at the greater picture. I I I I think it would be really helpful if we kind of looked at redevelopment on Westfield Avenue as a whole rather than piece by piece. And maybe that's going on and I and I I'm not trying to

118
00:34:10.720 --> 00:34:25.760
criticize. I get that it's difficult job that you guys have to do up here and but from the outside looking looking in it does look like this is like we're doing little projects one at a time and we're not looking at the greater greater picture. So I appreciate your time. Thank you.

119
00:34:25.760 --> 00:34:44.800
>> Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward to discuss anything before the board? Please do so state your name and residency. >> Hi Nancy Toascus Clark.

120
00:34:44.800 --> 00:35:01.680
So with this piece of property or multiple properties, I don't know the ownership of the properties. There are four properties and can one person buy one property and another person buy another and then

121
00:35:01.680 --> 00:35:18.079
third and then a fourth or are we looking for one person to buy all four properties >> as stated earlier they're all under common ownership. All four properties are under common ownership >> and that and then that person can't subdivide those properties and sell it

122
00:35:18.079 --> 00:35:33.359
to two different people. So they could put two different kind of affordable housings up. I don't know. I'm just asking is can I mean it's even if it's under common ownership, does that person have to sell it to one person or can that one owner sell it to four different

123
00:35:33.359 --> 00:35:49.359
people? >> Eventually, if the council accepts this board's recommendation, uh it will designate the area as an area need of redevelopment. After that, the council will designate a redeveloper and

124
00:35:49.359 --> 00:36:06.720
so that redeveloper will have the authority to develop in that area. And so you can't just sell it to a bunch of people. So the the thing about redevelopment is that it allows for a lot more control over a site or a series

125
00:36:06.720 --> 00:36:22.880
of sites um when you typically would not, you know, necessarily have that under the general municipal land use law. So, uh, that is up to the, uh, council in how they develop the redevelopment plan and do a redeveloper designation and agreement. Um, but

126
00:36:22.880 --> 00:36:39.839
typically you don't want peace meal redevelopers in a in a redevelopment area if you can help it. >> So, the redeveloper will kind of lay the groundwork for the that piece of property, >> right? So this is just saying, you know,

127
00:36:39.839 --> 00:36:56.560
does it meet the does it meet the conditions under the, you know, redevelopment local redevelopment housing law to be considered an area needed redevelopment. At some point the council will um be coming up with a plan, you know, down to like a fine

128
00:36:56.560 --> 00:37:11.520
tooth comb of how the property needs to be developed. Um and and so that will have to be followed. >> Okay. But and first it has to be designated as a redevelopment or it's been done. So that's been done already. >> It has not been done. This meeting was

129
00:37:11.520 --> 00:37:29.280
to under the law, the planning board has to hold a public hearing and then make a recommendation to the uh to the council. And so what happened today was you hel the planning board held the public hearing and adopted a resolution recommending to the council that it be

130
00:37:29.280 --> 00:37:44.720
designated. From here on it goes to the council. Council will decide whether or not they agree with the planning board. If they agree, they can adopt a uh uh resolution declaring it an area need of redevelopment. If they disagree,

131
00:37:44.720 --> 00:38:02.320
nothing happens. Uh after assuming it gets assuming they agree and it becomes an area need of redevelopment then after that the council uh will prepare or have prepared a uh redevelopment plan which is a really granular plan about how the

132
00:38:02.320 --> 00:38:33.760
property is to be developed and eventually that will come back to this board for consistency review. Um but so we're we're early very early in the process here. Well >> I'm glad I'm here early. Thank you. Good evening again, Jillia Collins

133
00:38:33.760 --> 00:38:48.960
Clark. I'm trying to understand the redevelopment process. say that there are homes further down on Westfield Avenue, which I assume are in the downtown village area. So, if

134
00:38:48.960 --> 00:39:04.720
someone came into town and buys four houses, and they form an LLC, they can come in and let the property go into disrepair and then it can become an area of redevelopment.

135
00:39:04.720 --> 00:39:20.720
There's nothing requiring uh I'm >> sorry >> there's nothing requiring that an area be designated as one in redevelopment. So you know if you're trying to game the system there's nothing requiring a municipality to to designate as an area in need of redevelopment. It's a purely discretional decision.

136
00:39:20.720 --> 00:39:36.560
>> Okay. It's just confusing cuz that area has gone down where those four properties are. You know, you could see it. It's in disrepair. And you think that the town would have gotten to the owner to the point where

137
00:39:36.560 --> 00:39:53.440
they would have to make some type of repairs. Just it just seems like it's a disregard for the town, for this owner to let these properties go into disrepair and then be able to develop it.

138
00:39:53.440 --> 00:40:10.560
>> Just one comment on that. Um the exteriors of the buildings were were fine. So unless unless the the property owner was having some type of permit done, there would be no reason for the town to be inside those those units. So it could easily be hidden for years uh

139
00:40:10.560 --> 00:40:29.200
for that reason. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Seeing no one, I make a motion to close the meeting to the public. Do I have a second? >> Second, >> Bill. Thank you. All in favor?

140
00:40:29.200 --> 00:40:44.880
>> Any opposed? >> Does the board have any new business they wish to discuss? >> Mayor, >> I'd like to just make a few comments to some of the individuals here because they they said they're struggling with how this all works. And a big part of it

141
00:40:44.880 --> 00:41:02.960
is each township under New Jersey state statutes every 10 years has to come up with a master plan of how they're going to develop things. And that is the time when all these areas get addressed. You've re-examined the report and you

142
00:41:02.960 --> 00:41:19.040
have deadlines. You have you have to define the purpose of what you're doing. And that's why we have a downtown. When we say we have a DTV, that's part of the master plan. The last time the master plan was updated was in 2023.

143
00:41:19.040 --> 00:41:34.560
It has to be updated every 10 years. Now, throughout the years that I've been involved with local government here, one of our goals was to develop the downtown area because a lot of the businesses went out of business and it's

144
00:41:34.560 --> 00:41:50.880
somewhat blighted as you can see. Now, as far as what Mr. Ricky said, yes, the outside look of those buildings looked fine. It's just like driving past someone's home. It might look fine, but inside you don't know what's going on. and we can't go in there and examine

145
00:41:50.880 --> 00:42:07.119
those things. But getting back to the downtown village, the idea was to bring people into that area, bring residences, apartments in that area. That was one of the goals because the shopkeepers don't get enough business. We had approached

146
00:42:07.119 --> 00:42:22.800
them a couple of years ago to put, you know, trees, flowers there and, you know, have it set aside like you see in some of the other towns, like you see what's gone on in Famwood or Westfield or Cranford. That's the type of downtown

147
00:42:22.800 --> 00:42:39.359
you want to have. Some of the new businesses there, they're very happy. There's a gym there, there's a coffee house, and the local people there are going there. They're using the facilities, but it still has a long way to go. We cannot control who buys those

148
00:42:39.359 --> 00:42:56.160
properties. It's we're not buying the properties. The township isn't buying the properties. Developers, you encourage developers to come in and improve the properties and that's what we want. So hopefully that adds a little bit more insight into it

149
00:42:56.160 --> 00:43:11.760
where the redevelopment guidelines and designations come from. I don't know if you want to add anything to that, Mr. Ricky. Um, no. I I think that was well said, Mayor. >> Thank you, Mayor. Anyone else have a new

150
00:43:11.760 --> 00:43:27.520
business? Hearing none. Any old business? Our next meetings will be August 6th, September 3rd, and October 1st. I make a motion. Motion to adjourn the meeting. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Lance and Mike. Add a tie.

151
00:43:27.520 --> 00:43:34.119
All in favor? I. >> Any opposed? Meeting adjourned.