Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Interim Use Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves interim 350‑space parking lot on Route 440 with conditions and sunset clause
Summary
The board approved a temporary (two‑year, renewable once) interim commercial parking facility for up to 350 spaces at Block 452.02 Lot 5.01, subject to conditions including refuse hauling, security surveillance, and engineering resolution. An interested party asked the board to require a pro rata contribution for prior intersection improvements per a 2016 redevelopment agreement; the applicant and board counsel said that obligation is disputed and pending resolution in superior court.
The Bayonne Planning Board voted to approve an interim commercial parking facility on a former industrial parcel along Route 440 (Block 452.02, Lot 5.01), permitting up to 350 long‑term parking spaces for tenant‑operated vehicle storage. The approval is temporary: the board recorded a two‑year sunset on the use with an option for a single one‑year extension that would require demonstration of progress toward the site’s redevelopment.
Applicant counsel told the board the interim lot is intended to provide revenue and site upkeep while longer‑term redevelopment proceeds under an amended redevelopment plan. Civil and traffic witnesses testified the paved layout can accommodate 12×30 parking stalls for the intended vehicle types, that the gate and driveway will be set back per DOT minimums and that lighting, drainage and stormwater permits have been coordinated with NJDEP as required for the flood‑hazard area.
Conditions the board recorded include: a third‑party refuse/hauler contract to keep the site clean, an operator‑acceptable security camera/surveillance program to be reviewed by the board engineer, and that the driveway apron and DOT tie‑ins will be reevaluated if the applicant returns for an extension at the two‑year mark. The applicant agreed to address landscaping and lighting levels with board professionals and to provide truck‑turning exhibits if needed.
An interested party (counsel for a nearby redeveloper) asked the board to require the applicant to make a pro‑rata fair‑share payment for prior intersection improvements (a traffic signal project) under a 2016 redevelopment agreement. Applicant counsel and board counsel stated that the matter is currently in dispute in superior court and that the board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the contractual dispute; the board proceeded to approve the interim use with the conditions recorded.
Outcome: The motion to approve passed on the record (two yeas recorded, several abstentions noted on the transcript); counsel advised the abstentions were not recorded as nays and the application was approved by majority. The applicant must meet the conditions of approval in the resolution‑compliance step before continued operations.
