There we go. Is it going to be a quick one? >> I hope so. >> Fingers crossed. >> I'm gonna drag it out. >> There's nothing good on TV tonight. I'm staying here. >> Nothing good. Hi, >> I'm Kevin >> here to talk. Stop watching and be able
to keep up. Don't worry. >> Welcome to the planning board meeting Thursday, March 5th, 2026. This meeting is in compliance with open public meetings act chapter 231 PL 1975 as adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by mailing the annual schedule
of meetings to the star ledger, the leader and the union county source by posting such annual meeting schedule on the bulletin board and town hall reserve for such announcements. the official website of town of the township ourclark.com and in compliance with PL
2025 C72 effective March 1st 2026 and the proper filing of said notice 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 be maintained at all times. >> I'm going to do roll call. Mayor Albanese >> here. >> Mr. Olrich.
Councilman Maniti >> here. >> Mr. Cotch >> here. >> Mr. Steinberg >> here. >> Mr. Alman >> here. >> Mr. Gri >> here. >> Mr. Gronowski >> here. >> Mr. Mr. Cecil >> here. >> Mr. Fiser >> here. >> Mr. Ricky >> here.
>> We stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the stands for all. Has everyone had a chance to review the minutes of our February 5th, 2026 meeting? Any comments, questions,
changes? Seeing none, I make a motion to approve. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mike. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? We have one absence. Correspondence. All correspondence to the board is available at town hall for the public review as
they wish at their leisure. As such, I make a motion to dispense with the reading of the correspondence. Do I have a second? >> Second. Thank you, Mike. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Abstension? Absent? >> He's gonna go talk. Okay.
>> Well, are you going to do anything with the consistency review? >> Uh, sure. If you'd like me to. Um, there's I guess there's four ordinances for consideration. Uh, ordinance number 266. Um, and and just before I start, all the
ordinances that are being considered tonight, they were all attached in their exact form as an appendix to the amended housing plan that the board voted on last month. So, I'm going to describe what these are, but all these ordinances, in my opinion, there are no
inconsistencies with the master plan because they are the exact ordinances that are located in the master plan, the housing element, fair share plan, element of the master plan that the board passed last month. So, um are you going to vote on them independently or
are you going to do >> as a group? >> What? >> As a group? >> As a group. Well, ordinance uh 2606, that's an overlay zone um for the Raritan Road uh sites in in the in the plan as well as the the Polish Heritage Foundation. And just to be clear that
all of these uh proposed resonings are for overlay zones where the property owner has the option either to build under the existing zoning or buy into the overlay. uh because these are all unmet need sites, not the hard sites
that we're we're going to talk about later um today. Um so the rarian road site um uh and the Polish Heritage Foundation site uh in my opinion is consistent with the master plan, consistent with other areas uh of the
township. It allows for uh a density of of 16 units uh per acre. And is there any more detail the board would like me to go into? Okay. Um, ordinance 2607. Um, again, an overlay site. Um, this is
uh a zone that's also um would allow for uh at Clark Village and Clarkton Shopping Center. um would require uh a mixeduse zone with commercial on the ground floor, apartments on upper floors, and again at
a density of 16 units per acre. Um ordinance 2608. Um again, an overlay district. Um I believe I'm going to reverify this, but 16 units per acre. They're all 16, I'm pretty sure. uh 16 units per acre, but this would allow um
the Grand Centurans to have age restricted housing um at the Grand Centurans property as an overlay option. Um and then the final ordinance is this is the um the general affordable housing
ordinance um that uh specifies all the particulars of affordable housing in the township. um you know the rules and regulations uh you know how long things have to be deed restricted for the all the definitions
associated with affordable housing that you have to have a 20% set aside and all those particulars how you market units uh and all those particulars that it's is an upgrade in replacement to the township's existing affordable housing
ordinance that's in place today. And this was established by uh pretty much um every every town in the state that's participating received a a draft ordinance that was really just briefly modified to make it consistent with the
township's like just general requirements. So this is pretty much a statewide consistent ordinance. Thank you for that. Anybody in the board have any questions or comments regarding these ordinances? As such, I make a motion to approve
ordinance 26-06, 26-07, 26-8, and 2609. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Lance. Roll call, please. >> Mayor Albanese. >> Yes.
>> Councilman Maniti, >> Mr. Cotch. >> Yes, >> Mr. Alman. Yes, >> Mr. Steinberg. >> Yes, >> Mr. Gribb. >> Yes, >> Mr. Gronowski. >> Yes, >> Mr. Cecil.
>> Yes. >> There's no public comment on resolutions. There's going to be opportunity for at least two more times. Okay, moving on. Presentation and public hearing. Presentation, public hearing on
designation of property located at 737 Route Road, block 34, lot 25.01 1 as an area of non- condemnation redevelopment. Mr. Ricky, can you give us an overview of this? >> Yes. I was going to do a quick
PowerPoint pres. >> Yes, you may. >> You should be all set. >> Should have this down. >> Oh, no. It's over here. Apparently didn't play enough uh operation sir.
Yeah, it's not it's not the best. I hope so. This is when it's difficult when you're a Mac. Hopefully everyone can follow along then. >> Is the mic on,
Paul? No, your mic. Okay. >> Okay. Uh, good evening. Um, I prepared a a redevelopment investigation for block 34, lot 25.01. 01 known as 737 Raritan Road. Uh the report was dated uh
February 20th, 2026 and was prepared by myself. Uh here we just we have a cover just a couple pro couple pictures of the the subject property. Uh just I think the board is aware of this by now. Just a couple
remarks. uh the governing body uh essentially asks the the planning board to conduct a redevelopment study. And a redevelopment study is a study that's performed by a planner where I analyze how a property or properties meet one of
eight redevelopment criteria in the red local redevelopment in housing law. I prepare a report of my findings. Uh essentially the board would either take a vote in this case there's only one property that they believe that all the properties none of the properties or a portion of the study area this case
there's one property qualifies and meets the area and ultimately you would vote um as to whether you believe that the area uh meets the criteria that I'm going to discuss today. Um couple things about the study area. It's one property.
Uh it's about 0.81 acres in area. I'm going to show you a picture in a moment. Uh it it's located on Raridan Road. We refer to it as the the former gas station site. Um it's currently located
in your R16 residential district. And the district today allows for town houses and garden apartments at a density of 16 units per acre. I'll touch upon this in a moment, but this property was part of your previous round three
affordable housing plan and your current housing plan and it's established in the plan to meet to provide two affordable housing units on the property. Um, currently the property as reported in NJD, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection Information uh currently has environmental contamination on it which I'll discuss more in a moment. So, here's an aerial of the subject property. On the top, I'm showing Madison Hill Road, and then I'm going to the from the upper uh central
to the bottom left of the image, I'm showing uh Raridan Road. Uh again, the property is has been vacant, unimproved since at least uh 2002. I note that the NJD report shows contamination back to
1999. It's my understanding that the property essentially caught on fire. uh blew up for a lack of a better word and it's remained uh idle since then. Uh again, I I kind of jumped forward and mentioned this, but your your housing
plan element uh has it as an affordable housing site for for two units. Um the 2023 master plan re re-examination report just to uh just promotes or several items in the report. U encourage
redevelopment, maintain economic and land use stability, promote balanced land uses. Those are just some general themes regarding the redevelopment criteria. These are the criteria that the planner looks at to see if a property or properties uh meets any of
these criteria. And there's eight of them. Like A is these are deterioration, unh wholesome living and working conditions. Uh B these this is abandonment. Um there's there's high degrees of vacancy and the like. We're
not considering uh those criteria today because the land is vacant. The only criteria that we can consider is the C criteria. Public can probably own vacant land and to some extent the the H criteria. However, it's my opinion that
the H criteria, it's a smart growth criteria that has to be combined with another criteria uh to for redevelopment purposes. Um, and I I would just mention here we only have one parcel, but uh properties
that don't meet any criteria can be included in my opinion in a limited basis when they're needed for the effective redevelopment of the area, but that would not be considered this evening. uh as well. And I want to read the C criteria to you so you can hear it. And this is what we're really
considering uh this evening for designation. Land that is owned by the municipality, the county, or a local housing authority, redevelopment agency, or redevelopment entity, or unimproved vacant land. The case here that has remained so for a period of 10 years
prior to the adoption of the resolution. That's absolutely true, right? because it's been since 2003 at a minimum. And that by reason of its location, we're not looking at location. It's on a, you know, it's on a county roadway. Remoteness, it's not remote.
Lack of means of access. It has access to developed sections or portions of the municipality or topography. It's doesn't have steep slopes. and then or the nature of the soil and that's what we're looking at today as a result of the contamination of the soil as reported by
NJD and is not likely to develop to the instrumentality of private capital. the land has remained idle um for over 20 years now. And and and just by way of background, how we got here was that when the
township was mediating with Fairshare Housing Center on its affordable housing plan, um the township had a deficit in its round three plan and and Fair Share Housing Center was trying to encourage the township um to help jumpstart some
of these sites to to encourage the affordable housing in the township's plans to redevelop. So, as part of that mediation and as part of the township's mediation agreement, u the township said that they would investigate, not designate, but investigate whether they
can designate the property as an area needed redevelopment with the goal of it ultimately being built with either apartments, town houses, and the two affordable housing units because the township has a previous round shortfall
that they're not currently meeting. And if that shortfall is not addressed, it, you know, it could be problematic moving forward, at least in terms of of meeting your affordable housing requirements. So, just a little bit some of the things I'll try not to be repetitive. The block
and lot, you know, this that's here, block 34, lot 25.01. The address again, 737 Rarin Road. Uh, in terms of how it applies to the criteria, uh, it's been vacant for over 10 years, right? The gas station was demolished and being
repetitive before 2002. It's known it's on on the D known contaminated sites list. The DP I have the case number listed here and it says the contaminants on site are benzene um where one micro millgram per liter. Sometimes I get that
wrong where 300 a number of 300 was observed. Uh there's also synthetic organic chemicals I believe. Um, also that was reported at over four times the the allowable limit as well. Um, the
report said that there was soil and groundwater contamination. Um, there's a there's a well restriction there. You couldn't you couldn't put a well in the ground because of the contamination. And this was established in in 1999 by the NJD.
From planning standpoint, again, um despite the fact that the the property is vacant, has good access and and there has been uh an excellent real estate market, um the the property has not uh redeveloped. Um we believe a portion of
that results from the contamination on the property. Um it's also clear that the presence of the contamination on site represents a significant public health hazard. um and that the study area has soil and
groundwater contamination related to the nature of the soil that renders the site unlikely to develop through the instrumentality of private capital. Those are the findings of the report. Just a few pictures. Uh it was snowing out. Um we're out there twice to try to
get the land without some snow on it, but it's, you know, it's an unimproved parcel of land. Um, I'm going to mention the smart growth criteria. Um, this is more of a a forward-looking theory and I I'll be quick with this, but the main criteria to really consider today is the
C criteria. the H criteria would uh just embellish the C criteria. But as a matter of fact, because uh Clark is in an area of the state known as planning area one, um it by definition meet is a is located within a smart growth area
where the goals are um recycling previously used land, supporting affordable housing, utilizing existing infrastructure, promoting compact development, avoiding environmental degragation. all would be advanced here.
Um and the state planning area one uh it indicates that in the plan encourage redevelopment, support compact growth, revitalize existing communities and stabilize urban suburbs. So in in summary, it's the
finding of the report that the study area, the one property uh meets both the C criterion and the H criterion. And that's my um direct presentation. Thank you, Mr. Ricky. Anyone on the board have any questions or comments regarding the report? I
>> I have some questions. Uh you only have to meet one of those criterias. >> Only one. However, the um with with the age criteria, I would say it should also be connected with another criteria because it's not a true blight criteria.
That hasn't been to my knowledge uh there hasn't been case law uh to that effect. But all planners that do this type of work wouldn't designate or recommend designation under the age criteria alone. >> The other question I have is who who actually owns that property?
>> Um the owner is his name is Mr. Papa >> Paparado. >> Was he responsible for cleaning up the contamination or whoever he sells it to? >> Um I don't want to speak on responsibility because that's you know how it was created. That's not
>> It could still It still could be Exxon. >> Yeah, >> that's my understanding, but I don't want to speak to that yet. >> Okay, I understand. Thank you. >> Thank you, Lance. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I'd like to open up this presentation to the public. I make a
motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mike. Anyone from the public wishing come forward to discuss what you just heard from Mr. Ricky, please do so. State your name and address. Maria Kazini. I'm the attorney for Vincent Paparado, 1132 Springfield
Avenue, Mountainside, New Jersey. Um, Mr. Paparado owns this property. You were asking who is the owner. Um, he resides in Kennoworth. His business is located in Kennoworth. He's a builder and he's a land developer and he's a real estate investor. Um, he pays taxes
on this property. He cuts the grass. He has the snow removed. He takes care of the trees. Um he has insurance. He's a responsible property owner and he also owns other properties in Clark. Um he's opposed to this op um this re um application to reszone this um for
redevelopment. Um years ago he tried to uh develop this as apartments and he was turned down by the board because of the number of units he wanted to build. Um he hasn't built here just as a business decision. This is a real estate investment in his land inventory. It's
not an abandoned property. It's a valuable property. It's on Ritton Road in a great location. It has direct road access. It's next to a nice upscale homes. It's next to uh office buildings. Um he just has chose not to build on it
for just his own personal reasons. Um, the site was a former gas station and there is a D case, but my client believes that that's all been resolved and as far as I can tell based on the information, you just can't put a well on the property for wellwater, but this
would be serviced by public water. Um, but he believes that um, Exxon had taken care of all the contamination with the DP in that case is long closed and that has nothing to do with the reason why this house, this property has not been redeveloped. if they would have approved
it in 20 um like 20 years ago, there'd be 16 apartments at this site right now. Um the objection that he has is that as a taxpayer, he doesn't feel he should be so limited by the board in ter terms of what he can do. Um also it's right now
zoned for R16. So he'd be able to build 16 units per acre. He has8 acres, so that would be 12 units. Um two of those would be designated as affordable housing. And in his opinion, to recover that cost over 10 other units is not going to be
feasible. The other units would have to have extremely high rents. And if they were sold as town houses, they would have to sell at a very high price because there would only be 10 other units to offset the two. And in terms of the pilot program, he would have to incur all the construction costs at the
time of the development, whereas he would um Oh, I'm sorry. he would have to incur the uh development cost upfront as opposed to getting the tax savings which are unspecified over 30 years and again
that to him is not feasible. Um the development the town wants to reszone this as or approve this as redevelopment knowing there's a D case. So obviously the property can be developed. So that's not really a reason to um classify this
property under section C. Um the property the it is vacant land for 10 years. That is true. Um but it is um has direct road access in a great location. Um there's nothing wrong with the property. There's no specifics as to why it could not be developed. Um and the
only thing that is being advanced here is the D case, but if that was true, it couldn't be used for affordable housing units either. If the property was contaminated, nothing could be built here. So for all those reasons, my client's asking that this application be denied. He doesn't feel that it's
appropriate. None of these classifications affect his property other than it's vacant land. That's the only thing that we agree. >> What does he want to do with it? What's his idea? >> He he wants to keep it until he's ready to build on it. He has other vacant land in other towns and even
>> he wants to keep it vacant. >> Well, for today um not forever. At some point he is going to build. >> He's done it for over 20 years. >> Over 20 years it's vacant. Well, he did come here um at some point with an application to build and the town said
no. Um at that time that application was denied, but I I don't believe >> Do you recall how many units he tried? I wasn't on the board at that point. Do you recall how many units he tried to get put on that property? >> I know it was more than 10 years. I don't know how how many units. 16 units.
14 to 16 units here. >> That's what you're allowed. That's what we're allowing now. So >> No, you're not because it's8 acres. So it would be 12 and then you're taking off two. So then it would be 10 10 market rates, 10 market. But I mean I I don't think a land owner should be
forced or a property owner should be forced to have to build something on a property that they're maintaining. Um the property is not in a state of disrepair. Um he has a person who maintains it. He has a landscaper cuts the grass. He shovels the snow. He takes care of the property.
Ju just to be clear f first off this is is just um you know a recommendation to the governing body whether or not the governing body uh does or does not adopt that is the governing body's choice but
there is nothing in this redevelopment potential redevelopment especially with Paul you mentioned it would be an overlay zone most likely >> no this is not >> oh this is not >> and just so you know that what she's discussing is the zoning that exists today it's been for at least eight years
zoned for garden apartments and town houses as part of the township's previous obligation at 16 units per acre. So >> was previously designated. >> It was pre previously that's what's allowed there to today. So that doesn't change based on what we're saying here.
Um and simply put there's contamination on the property and that's a public health issue. So, um I I disagree with what the counselor said in that regard as well. >> But again, if there was uh contamination on the property, we wouldn't be able to
build any housing, including affordable units. >> Well, >> I mean, properties can be remediated and there can be environmental cleanup on properties. It happens all the time. That's that's one of the reasons that redevelopment is undertaken. >> The wells have not been sampled for over 20 years. They could have kind of
diluted itself and cleaned itself. It's still an open case by the D. They site groundwater issues. Um there could be soil, but that's the only thing I saw was groundwater if that's correct. >> Um >> you could put in vapor if you could check to see if there's a vapor
intrusion that could occur. If if it is, you could always put in passive or active recovery systems almost like radon systems to mitigate that problem. Um it's already included in the overlay. We're not changing anything. We're being
pushed by the state housing authority, the housing, whatever they call themselves, to try to encourage more development because we have not met our third round obligations. Um, in essence, as councelor just said, it doesn't say
you have to do anything. It appears that it actually creates opportunities for the development to occur uh through tax benefits possibly. Um, but overall it it does not he could leave it vacant for another 20 years. We can't we're not
forcing him to do it. It's a non- conddemnation. If we wanted to do something, it would have been a condemnation one >> and we would have attempted to take the property, but that's not what we're doing. We're not trying to bully. In essence, maybe we were bullied by the
the uh affordable housing people to push for more action on the sites. We've shown all the other sites have housing on them or developed. This one is vacant. It's ripe for somebody to come in and build on it.
>> So, the only thing is when you take two units and say they're going to be affordable and now you can only build 12 units, you're actually discouraging the development because that the property was significantly upzoned to allow for the subsidation of those two units. This
is something that's incurring in 415 towns throughout the state of New Jersey right now. to suggest that the 20% set aside does not work is to suggest that 415 towns are are acting capriciously towards property owners and that's I I
just vehemently disagree with that statement and I also think we're kind of veering from the the purpose of this which is to uh for the board to consider whether or not to make a recommendation to the governing body as to where this meets the criteria not necessarily what it
might become in the future uh which will uh be designated by the governing body if they so choose to uh designate this as an area need of redevelopment. So, you know, >> it's just that none of the criteria and C really apply here because if you're
going to say it's because of the D, then the land can't be developed for anything. >> I I would I would disagree with that for uh multiple reasons, including those stated by uh Mr. Ricky. Um the it cannot be developed
uh well let's just say it has not been developed by private capital um and uh it does not appear to be and there appear to be numerous environmental issues.
uh whether or not you believe your client believes those have been resolved uh according to the D at least they appear not to have been. So uh your client may want to discuss with the D wherever is supposed to be or supposed
to have done the remediation um why it's not completed but uh in I agree with Mr. Ricky that the uh this does meet uh criterion C of the local
redevelopment and housing law as regarding the uh information that he placed on the record. So you're basing that on CB environmental um despite the fact that the owner says that's been resolved by Exxon 20 years ago and the
only restriction is you can't place a well and the exhibit that's been attached that's the only restriction that shows as well. So the environmental issue really doesn't exist and that's what's being used to justify this. >> I'm saying yeah are you finished? I'm sorry.
>> Sure. Um, I'm saying that the D indicated benzene that's 300 times over the standard and there's synthetic synthetic organic chemicals that are over four times um the permitted standard and that was the basis
>> and there's no reason that's not the reason why this property has not been developed. It was just a matter of choice business decision by the property owner. >> Excuse me. You said that you're opposed to having two affordable housing units,
but you also said you don't want to build on the property. >> Not right now. >> So, why don't you just hold on to it and address this at a future date? >> Then what's the point of doing this then? What's the point of doing this redevelopment if he's not going to >> We have to meet the the state's
requirements >> for affordable housing. We're not forcing you to do anything. They're just suggestions. >> It's it's just that to my client, he feels like why is he the one that has to, you know, make uh meet the affordable housing on his land? Um he he
does he doesn't agree that two houses out of 10, the other 10 won't be able to offset the cost. >> Well, he could pay into the uh the the account that we put aside, >> but again, uh he will merely be given the option of doing so. No one is going
to force him to build. Um it's that's not going to happen. It'll be zoning uh similar to uh the type of zoning that you see now. Um providing the option to construct affordable
housing, but no one is going to be taking his land or you know uh you know taking uh forcing him to go physically build something. >> I I understand that. But now there's going to be a redevelopment zone that says this is what this property is going
to be redeveloped for. And that's the problem that he has. >> But that's what the zoning says currently also. That's what it's going to be used for. >> Then why are we doing this redevelopment? >> Because redevelopment has long been used to encourage development of properties. Uh and it has numerous benefits ranging
from tax benefits to um you know uh more streamlined uh applications uh before the planning board because you can really you know get down to the nitty-gritty of what projects you know
you want them to look like. Um, and so, you know, if I understand correctly here, one of the points of redevelopment is to hopefully get the owner to discuss with the municipality
uh how it would be developed. So, there's there's many reasons to um to have a redevelopment uh even if the it's not fundamentally different. And I I'm not sure, no one knows exactly what the redevelopment
will say, but uh redevelopment plan, but even if it's not fundamentally different than the uh prior zoning, >> just one point I just want to say just just so you know, this was I didn't select this was a previous round site, but when we looked at the vacant land in
in Clark under the current plan, this is the only vacant piece of land in Clark that created the potential for affordable housing. 000 units under the rules because let me explain a different way. Um when you the town is given a
number, right? And just say that number is a 100 units. Um the township can accept that number or they can evaluate their vacant land and potentially lower their obligation. That's what the town did. And under the current round, the town lowered its obligation to zero
units and then they had to provide opportunities for affordable housing to occur. Uh when I did the vacant land adjustment, this was the only property if it wasn't already uh established for affordable housing
that would have generated affordable housing need or that would have placed a burden on the township to provide housing on the site. This is the only property in town. Just to be clear, >> I I guess my client just believes that
if he's land is the one that's going to help the town, he should get more units that he should be able to build to spread that cost because 12 units and two being affordable gives 10 market and that's not really feasible in his opinion.
>> Understood. And that, you know, should this board recommend to the governing body that uh this be declared an area need of redevelopment and should the governing body uh actually declare it an area need of redevelopment, then comes the actual putting together of a plan.
And that's kind of the stage where I think you're most concerned. So, um it sounds like your client needs to discuss with uh the governing body or I'm not sure administration
uh you know what what could be on the site. Um but this is just saying that it meets the criteria and it's not even it's just recommending to the council that it meets the criteria. With with that said, the township, whatever they do, would have to build >> at least >> as >> long
>> as you built the two affordable housing units, the township would have met its obligation here. That's the only, you know, parameter that would have to remain at least two. Could be more, could be couldn't be less. >> And there are minimum set aides. So, >> well, yes, the the two being the
affordable I'm saying. Yeah, at the correct set aside. Yes. >> Right. Yeah. >> So, I mean, your objection, it's noted. >> Okay. Um, I think I've uh given my my legal advice. >> Other comments you'd like to give before
we hear anybody else in the audience or take our vote? Thank you, counselor. Anybody else wishing to come forward to discuss the presentation we just heard? Seeing none, I make a motion to close to the public. I have a second.
>> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? Okay. Um, at this point I make a motion to approve the adopt.
>> Adopt, not approve, adopt. A motion to adopt the um, a resolution recommending the property identified as block 34, lot 25.01 on the tax map of the township of Clark be designated as a non-condemnation area
in need of redevelopment. >> I have a second. Second. >> Thank you, Lance. Roll call vote. >> Mayor Albanese. >> Yes. >> Councilman Maniti. >> Yes. >> Mr. Cotch. >> Yes. >> Mr. Alman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Steinberg. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Gri. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gronowski. >> Yes. >> Mr. Cecil. >> Yes. >> Application. >> Moving on to public session. U. Anyone wishing to come forward from the public to discuss any matters with this board may do so at this point. I make a motion
to open up the meeting to the public. I have a second. >> Second. >> Thank you, Mike. Bill, anyone from the public wishing to come forward, please do so. State your name. Dia Collins, Clark. Um, I have two questions and I don't know if I'm
allowed to ask Mr. Ricky these questions or just go to the board itself. >> Ask the question and we'll see the >> Okay, you'll determine that. Um I attended a meeting last night regarding um another town's issue with affordable housing and
there were things that were said that I didn't know about. Uh there's a New Jersey affordable housing region map. Six distinct regions set by COA. What region does Clark fall into?
>> I forget the number off the top of my head. If you really would like to know, it's with with several other counties it is. So, um, do you want to know the region number or or >> Well, I just looked it up online and it just goes by areas. It doesn't it does
give some towns, but um it doesn't give a specific where Clark would stand. >> Usually, it's by county. >> Okay. You just brought up the application of redevelopment criteria.
Who determined is it the fair housing center determined the smart growth area? >> No. >> Versus >> that's part of the the state plan. >> Okay. Because where I was last night basically it's involves New Jersey
Transit Corridor in a way. They want to develop along the corridor. Is that part of the redevelopment criteria? Um when I mentioned the smart growth criteria, it's a it's a secondary non-blite criteria that I believe is
just something that you can use in addition to another criteria and that's why I I stated as as such. But uh because it is a criteria where um this site uh meets I also just embellished the study by including it.
>> Can you speak into the mic? Um um it's it's used in this context as an embellishing criteria. What I stated earlier when I was on on the record uh I indicated that it's a non blight criteria. Uh it's something that's part
of the it was an added uh designation criteria that was added like later than all the others. Was it's been a number of years now. But um while there hasn't been case law on this and myself and most other planners believe that you can only use the HMAR growth criteria with
another criteria, you can't just use it as a standalone criteria by itself. So we just mentioned it as well as an embellishing criteria as part of the the study because it's when I do the study, I have to evaluate it based on every criteria that's under the law and
because that's one of them, I can't just skip over it. Okay, >> that makes sense. >> Yeah, I understand. I just didn't know because you used, you know, smart growth area and they were using more of a transit
issue because they get credits if it's closer to a a rail station. >> Okay. You're referring to the concept of um affordable housing where if affordable housing is built when it's certain proximity to a rail stop that they would get a surplus credit,
>> right? And I I mean so for every unit built you get another half unit of credit I believe is the number um as a surplus credit because the state is trying to encourage development around transit. That's why. >> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Anyone else wishing to come forward? Seeing none I make a motion to close to the public. I have a second. >> Thank you Mike. All in favor. >> Any nays? extensions. Okay. Do we have any new business to
discuss? Old business. Our next meeting will be April 2nd followed by May 7th and June 4th. I make a motion adjourned. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Lance. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed?
Meeting is adjourned. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Thank you.