Clark Township planning board denies 2733 Westfield Avenue mixed‑use site plan

The Clark Township Planning Board voted on March 7 to deny a site‑plan application for 2733 Westfield Avenue, a proposed mixed‑use building that would have included 39 rental apartments and about 1,600 square feet of ground‑floor commercial space.

The project team, represented by counsel Steven Hale, proposed a three‑story residential building over one level of parking with 13 one‑bedroom, 14 two‑bedroom and 12 three‑bedroom apartments. Architect Miguel Martin said the developer would set aside six units as affordable—one one‑bedroom, three two‑bedroom and two three‑bedroom units—“to meet the affordable housing requirement,” and that affordable units would receive the same finishes as market units.

Traffic and engineering experts told the board they believed the site could operate within local standards. Traffic engineer Corey Chase cited Institute of Transportation Engineers trip rates and a Rutgers 2023 parking study to estimate the development would generate roughly 16 AM peak and 20 PM peak trips and an anticipated residential parking demand of about 55 vehicles; the plan proposes 69 parking stalls (30 tandem stalls plus nine single spaces). Chase said on‑street counts along Westfield Avenue found roughly 25 available spaces during his sample periods, and he concluded street parking could accommodate the modest commercial demand (about five to 10 spaces depending on the tenant).

The applicant’s civil engineer, Adnan Khan, summarized the site civil plans and said the project would require the standard New Jersey DEP Treatment Works Approval process and confirmation of sewer flow rights from the Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority before any sewer connections. Khan said the design included pipe storage for stormwater where soils would not accept infiltration and that the plan would meet township runoff and lighting standards.

Many neighbors who spoke at the public hearing urged the board to reject the application or to ask for additional protections. Concerns centered on nighttime lighting from the garage, loss of on‑street parking on Washington Street, cut‑through traffic and safety where residents said drivers already travel at high speeds, and the potential burden on local sewer and drainage infrastructure. “Where are other cars going to park when there’s a four‑vehicle resident?” asked Linda Marhall, who lives adjacent to the site.

Board counsel and staff flagged several standard conditions that would be required if the board approved the application, including compliance with professional review letters, interspersing affordable units through the floors rather than clustering them, securing TWA and sewer‑authority approvals, purchasing any additional flow rights required by the purveyor, no tractor‑trailer unloading on site, and a lighting plan specifying a warmer Kelvin and security lighting levels that the township engineer and planner must approve.

During deliberations a motion to approve the plan (with requested waivers for commercial parking and a reduced sidewalk width on Washington Street) was made and seconded. In the roll call the board recorded 'Yes' votes from Mayor Bonacourso and Councilman Manetti and recorded 'No' votes from several members, including Mr. Koch, Mr. Altman and Mr. Klee. The chair then announced, “Application is denied.”

The denial closes this application at the planning‑board level. The applicant may revise the proposal, seek to provide additional on‑site parking or mitigation measures, or pursue an appeal or other administrative remedies required under state and local law. The board and mayor indicated they would continue to explore options for municipal parking and enforcement measures if redevelopment increases off‑street parking pressure in the neighborhood.

The hearing also produced an extended record of technical testimony the developer and consultants can reference in a revised submission or on appeal.