The Bayonne Planning Board approved a contentious temporary commercial parking lot off of Route 440 to conclude a legal saga, following an unusual 2-0(3) vote in its favor at Tuesday’s meeting.
By Dan Israel/Hudson County View
The application by “BLOCK 452.02, LOT 5.01, LLC,” an affiliate of the Lakewood-based 528 LLC, for the site at New Hook Road and East 22nd Street will see the now-vacant former Clayton Block property turned into an interim commercial parking lot with 350 spaces.
However, the parking would be for long-term storage and per the settlement agreement would not accommodate tractor trailers, rather smaller commercial vehicles that fit into 12 foot by 30 foot spaces.
This proposal follows a legal saga that began after a denial by the city’s zoning board of adjustment in 2022 for affiliate The L Group, LLC’s application to formalize the interim use of the site as a commercial parking lot.
The site began being used as tractor trailer parking for some years following the demolition of the buildings on the property in mid-2020. Otherwise, the lot has remained vacant.
Applicant attorney Matthew Posada explained how the application to reactivate the site differed from others since it comes in the wake of a settlement agreement.
That exists between the City of Bayonne, the Bayonne Zoning Board of Adjustment, and The L Group, LLC, as well as another property owner in the redevelopment area that was executed in 2024, effectively reversing the aforementioned zoning board decision.
He said that, as part of that settlement agreement, all parties agreed that they would work together “in conformity and cooperation” in order to create a new project along Route 440 that would have multiple uses.
However, Posada said that the inclusion of multiple parcels, including this one, and multiple government agencies, such as the New Jersey Department of Transportation, in the project mean it will take some time to complete.
He said that in the meantime, the parties involved in the settlement agreement agreed that the property owner can have an interim use on the site “to defray the cost while we go through the local redevelopment and housing procedures in order to bring a new project to fruition.”
Posada said that all parties are cooperating and moving the project forward, including the recent amendment of the The Scattered Sites 14: Route 440 West Redevelopment Plan to allow for the interim commercial parking facility use on the site.
He said the developer is also studying another property to include in the redevelopment area, but to ensure cooperation, there is a two-year sunset period on the parking lot.
While there is an option for a one-year extension for the parking lot if the larger project is not yet ready to reach the construction phase, but the applicant must come back and ask the board for that and must show “good cause.”
Regardless, Posada noted that all renovations on site will be pulled out within 24 to 36 months of the larger project obtaining a certificate of occupancy.
He said that there has been discussions with two potential tenants to utilize the temporary commercial parking lot for the two- to three-year period, including Amazon and Tesla.
According to Posada, they do not anticipate a full-time attendant to be on-site, but rather a secured gate and an agent who may visit the site regularly.
City Planner Suzanne Mack noted that the NJDOT has restrictions for the site, and the state recently designated it as a Brownfield Development Area due to contamination from its industrial past.
She suggested that IMTT-Halecky Park receive some renovations as community giveback from the larger project planned for the site after the interim parking lot.
After a lengthy hearing revolving around mundane details, attorney Jonathan Guldin, representing 195 East 22nd Street Urban Renewal, LLC and the Alessi Organization, asked the board to consider a condition approval on the project.
Specifically, they wanted the applicant pay their “fair share” of a contribution toward intersection improvements made by his client per a 2016 redevelopment agreement for a different project.
According to Guldin, his client spent $1.6 million to renovate the intersection of Route 440 and East 22nd Street in 2018, which was required by the aforementioned redevelopment agreement, which he noted was drafted by the firm Posada worked for at the time.
The move followed pedestrian deaths at the intersection at the time, which coupled with nearby redevelopment led to the demand for an improved traffic signal on the east side of the intersection, he said.
According to Guldin, the agreement stated that after his client completed the improvements to intersection, that any nonresidential commercial developers proposing new development would make a fair shore contribution to the cost of the improvements.
However, he added that has not happened for other sites in the contribution area, such as the Extra Space Storage self-storage facility constructed by Johnson Development at 201 East 23rd Street.
Guldin also seemed to suggest the Posada was conflicted because of that and since he was also representing Johnson Development, in pending litigation also involving 195 East 22nd Street Urban Renewal, LLC and the City of Bayonne.
However, board attorney Richard Campisano quickly jumped in and noted was a non-starter and to move on.
According to Posada, the City of Bayonne and Johnson Development contend in that litigation that the window of opportunity for any clawback has since elapsed.
He said that the City of Bayonne had an eight-year window to use “best efforts” to collect the funds, and disputed what properties were included in the contribution area as well as the $1.6 million figure itself.
“The Alessi Organization engaged in unclean hands to extend that window,” Posada said during the public hearing.
He also confirmed that this project would not include a contribution to offset the cost of the intersection renovations, rejecting it as a third condition of approval, and stating that the issues raised by Guldin will be litigated by a Hudson County Superior Court judge, not the planning board.
Yet Guldin was persistent, insisting that the planning board was part of the City of Bayonne, that the city was in possession of the costs since 2022, and that the Planning Board should be required to help collect the funds by mandating the contribution as a condition of approval.
The application was approved despite most commissioners abstaining, with two conditions of approval: That the tenant would contract a third-party to collect garbage and that the tenant will install a security camera system.
Chair Karen Fiermonte and Commissioner Caitlyn Schaible voted yes, while Commissioners Ahmed Lack, Steven Rhodes, and Edward Lubbock abstained for a 2-0(3) tally, which was recorded as an approval since abstentions don’t count as no votes.
 vote.){kind=link}