Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clark Township board authorizes study to consider redevelopment of West Avenue parcels; resident raises Westfield Avenue traffic concerns
Summary
The board voted to authorize a preliminary investigation to determine whether several parcels on West Avenue qualify as an area in need of non‑condemnation redevelopment. A resident questioned cumulative traffic impacts on nearby Westfield Avenue; board members said each applicant submits traffic studies and a township traffic expert reviews them.
The Clark Township Planning Board voted May 7 to authorize a preliminary study to determine whether properties at block 77, lots 78 and 9, 191, 195, 199 and 205 West Avenue qualify as an area in need of non‑condemnation redevelopment.
The resolution directs the planning board’s planner to undertake the investigation; the board noted this action authorizes a study only and that any formal designation or redevelopment plan would be subject to later hearings. “At the last meeting, the council adopted a resolution directing the planning board to undertake a study to determine whether [these properties] should be designated as an area in need of redevelopment,” a board member said, and the motion to authorize the study carried on roll call.
During public comment, resident Dillia Collins raised concerns about cumulative projects on nearby Westfield Avenue and asked whether traffic studies account for multiple simultaneous developments. Collins said she understood “there’ll be five projects going on Westfield Avenue in the near future,” and worried about afternoon congestion, construction vehicles and school dismissal traffic. Board members responded that each applicant typically submits a traffic study for its site and that the township’s traffic expert reviews those studies and can question assumptions or methodology. The board noted Westfield Avenue is a county road, which also affects jurisdiction for construction staging and some traffic controls.
Following public comment, several board members asked the planner to prepare a summary of affordable‑housing applications and related information — variances requested and granted, parking required and provided — so the board can re‑examine zoning, parking requirements and whether ordinance tweaks are needed to address cumulative impacts. The planner’s review was requested as an informational task; no ordinance changes were proposed at the meeting.
What happens next: the planning board’s planner will undertake the preliminary investigation into redevelopment eligibility and will prepare the requested summary of affordable housing and parking data for future board review.
