Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Plan Reconsideration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clark Township records March denial and separately records June reconsideration that approved site plan
Summary
At a township meeting officials recorded a March 7 denial of a site-plan application and separately recorded a June 7 reconsideration that granted the applicant’s request; the clerk conducted roll calls for both memorializing resolutions and the transcript records yes votes for the members listed in the record.
At a Clark Township meeting, officials recorded both a March 7 planning-board denial of a site-plan application and, separately, a June 7 reconsideration that resulted in approval of the application with deviations.
A staff member summarized the sequence, saying: "What had what happened is on March 7, the planning board denied the application. Before the application before the board adopted a resolution, the applicant filed a motion for reconsideration... a hearing was held on June 7... the motion to reconsider or the application to reconsider and the preliminary and final site plan with deviations was granted." The staff member explained that a "yes" vote on the memorializing resolution simply records what the board did on March 7 and does not itself change the underlying outcome of the application.
The clerk recorded that the original motion to memorialize the March 7 action was moved by Mister Steinberg and seconded by Mister Jacobson. During the roll call the transcript records 'yes' responses from the members listed in the record: Mayor Bonacourso; Councilman Munitti; Mister Altman; Mister Steinberg; Mister Jacobson. The clerk then recorded votes on the separate resolution reflecting the June 7 reconsideration and the transcript again records 'yes' responses from the listed members.
The distinction discussed at the meeting centered on form: the first resolution memorialized the March denial (an administrative record of what occurred), while the separate reconsideration record reflects that the applicant’s request for reconsideration was granted at a later hearing. The staff member emphasized that voting to "memorialize" does not itself reinstate or negate the planning board’s decisions beyond recording them in the minutes.
The meeting moved on to a public comment period and then adjourned. The transcript does not specify the year of the March or June hearings; names in the roll calls appear in the meeting record with variant spellings in places, and the article reports them as they appear in the transcript.
