The Bayonne City Planning Board in its October meeting approved a recommendation that properties at 485 Avenue C, 487–493 Avenue C and 64–66 West 20 Second Street (Block 209, Lots 22, 23.01 and 27) be designated a non‑condemnation “area in need of redevelopment” and that the planning board’s report be forwarded to city council for its consideration.

Planner Ron Reinertsen of CME presented the study, describing the three parcels as functionally one property that includes the Russell Auto Body facility and adjacent lots. “It’s the Russell Auto Bodies facility,” Reinertsen said, describing the parcels and noting that two of the three lots fall within the municipal Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ) while one lot does not according to the project’s maps.

The study evaluated statutory LRHL criteria including criterion d (conditions of dilapidation or obsolescence), criterion g (location within an Urban Enterprise Zone) and criterion h (consistency with smart‑growth planning principles). Reinertsen told the board the report concludes the study area meets applicable criteria and recommends designation; he also said typographical errors in block/lot references will be corrected before the package goes to council.

Board members asked about permitted uses, UEZ mapping and the legal basis for including a lot that does not itself meet redevelopment criteria. Reinertsen said the permitted‑uses language in the draft came from the city code. On the inclusion question he explained that redevelopment law allows the board to include properties that are not themselves detrimental if their inclusion is needed “for the effective redevelopment of the area,” and that the three parcels function as one property in practice.

Reinertsen said he reviewed municipal tax and police records as part of the study, and found only minor police reports over a five‑year span that did not alter the study conclusions. He also reported an EMS site ID filing (a right‑to‑know hazardous‑materials report) for one lot tied to the auto‑body operation; wetlands and flood‑hazard checks found none.

After discussion, a motion to approve the planning board’s report and forward the recommendation to city council was made, seconded and carried on a roll‑call vote with Chairperson Fiamonte, Vice Chair Vilardo and Commissioners Veloz, Booker, Locke and Rhodes voting yes. The board recorded that the report will be revised to fix typos and clarify the UEZ mapping before submittal to council.

The planning board’s action is a recommendation; city council will make any final determination and decide whether to adopt a redevelopment designation and, if so, whether the designation will be by resolution as a non‑condemnation area.