Planning board finds 330–334 Ritton Avenue redevelopment plan substantially consistent with master plan

The Highland Park Planning Board on Feb. 13 reviewed Ordinance 25-2117, a borough-sponsored redevelopment plan for 330–334 Ritton Avenue, and voted that the proposal is substantially consistent with the borough master plan. The board’s recommendation will be forwarded to the borough council ahead of a public hearing scheduled for the 25th of the month.

The planner leading the presentation described the site as a single, underused property consisting of seven lots totaling about 1.67 acres with an existing ~15,000-square-foot building (block numbers as listed in the ordinance). He told the board the plan is a site-specific, borough-driven rezoning strategy intended to permit new, interim uses — including medical offices (urgent care, outpatient), daycare centers, indoor recreation and offices — that would not be allowed under the current underlying zoning without the redevelopment designation. The plan sets development standards (a four-story/50-foot height cap, parking ratios, setbacks and design controls) and requires cross‑access and parking agreements as part of redevelopment agreements for certain tenant types to ensure pedestrian and vehicular connections between South Third and South Fourth avenues.

“This is a great opportunity to connect between South Fourth and South Third,” the planner said, arguing that allowing a broader set of permitted uses for this building type would make the property more attractive to tenants while preserving a pathway to future, larger-scale redevelopment.

Board members probed multiple policy trade-offs during a lengthy Q&A. Concerns included vehicle circulation and child‑dropoff logistics if a licensed daycare were approved on the site (board members noted New Jersey licensing typically requires outdoor play space); statutory preemption for licensed child care in nonresidential zones; whether reduced parking ratios would be adequate; and whether features such as large parking canopies (for example, ground-mounted or canopy solar over the lot) could make future demolition or full redevelopment more difficult. One member summarized the property owner’s publicly stated position, saying the owner had told the borough, “This is my building. I’m not looking to change it,” underscoring the planner’s point that the ordinance provides both interim tenanting options and a pathway to later mixed‑use redevelopment should the owner or a future buyer pursue it.

The board also discussed historic planning context: the site had been removed from earlier downtown redevelopment designations after prior litigation and later included in a townwide rehabilitation designation; the planner noted that rehabilitation status limits certain incentives but still permits targeted redevelopment tools for a single site.

After discussion the board voted by roll call that the ordinance is substantially consistent with the master plan. Recorded votes in the roll call were: Mr. Brusher — yes; Mr. Chin — yes; Mr. Hazy — yes; Mr. Hail — yes; Mr. Ho — yes; Mr. Ferman — yes; Mr. Stern Cardell — yes (noting reservations); Mr. Williams — yes; Miss Hand — yes. The chair said she will draft the planning‑board resolution and make it available before the borough council’s public hearing on the ordinance, scheduled for the 25th of the month.

The presentation included several technical clarifications: the planner said the plan anticipates future EV charging infrastructure, proposes modest parking and landscaping standards tied to specific use types, and treats the ordinance as a superseding zoning mechanism that would replace the underlying zoning on this site if adopted. The planner and board agreed that any specific tenant proposal that requires changes to circulation, outdoor play areas or building modifications would return to the board through site‑plan review or a redevelopment agreement with negotiated conditions.

The meeting also covered unrelated items (corrections to prior meeting minutes and an inquiry about demolition at 810 North Second and stormwater catch‑basin language), and the board adjourned after approving the minutes and the redevelopment‑plan consistency finding.

What happens next: the borough council will hold a public hearing on Ordinance 25-2117; the planning board will post and circulate its formal resolution in advance so the governing body and the public can review the board’s findings.