The Planning Board on Wednesday unanimously determined that six properties just outside the Central Business District (CBD) Redevelopment Area, including the former St. Mark’s Church lot, qualify for redevelopment under the state’s Local Housing and Redevelopment Law.

Four of the six lots, comprising 85 percent of the Hamilton Street Redevelopment area investigation, qualify for redevelopment designation under at least two criteria of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law. Two other parcels likely would not qualify on their own but were included in the redevelopment area under Section 3, which allows a property to be included if it’s critical to, or impedes, redevelopment. The six lots are adjacent to three at the corner of Irving Street and Seminary Avenue, which are already part of the CBD Redevelopment Area.

After about an hour of testimony and questions from board members and some property owners, Planning Board General Counsel James Polles suggested the board direct the Planning Board secretary to issue a memo to City Council in lieu of passing a formal resolution, to “not hold up the process further.” The board approved the motion by a 9-0 vote.

City Council in February formally requested the Planning Board study six properties on Hamilton Street, Gordon Place and Seminary Avenue. The Redevelopment Agency earlier this month awarded a contract to appraise the properties, along with three adjacent parcels on Irving Street and Seminary Avenue.

The Planning Board’s planner, Paul Phillips of Hoboken-based Phillips Preiss Grygiel Leheny Hughes, LLC, spent about 25 minutes explaining the criteria that properties must meet to qualify for redevelopment before reviewing each property examined within the Hamilton Street redevelopment study. The investigation included surveys of land use and property conditions, review of tax maps and records, zoning and property maintenance violations, police reports and review of existing zoning ordinances. The complete 87-page report can be accessed here.

It’s up to the Planning Board to determine if parcels meet the criteria and then recommend to City Council whether any, all, or none of the properties be designated in need of redevelopment. The governing body is the sole judge whether to use condemnation power, Polles explained. City Council also would adopt a redevelopment plan via ordinance. The governing body is on its summer schedule and next plans to meet on July 16 and Aug. 12 for combined pre-conference and regular meetings.

Several property owners asked about the status of their properties given the redevelopment study and what plans there are for the area. Phillips said he’s not seen or been presented with any redevelopment plan and he wouldn’t want to see any such plan before completing this investigative study. A redevelopment plan could potentially allow for a property owner to make improvements and not include it within a redevelopment plan, Phillips said, but at this point “everything’s on the table.”

It’s difficult when you’re dealing with people’s homes, Planning Board member Alex Shipley said before the vote, but the St. Mark’s property needs to be addressed. There’s nothing planned now but the area might be viable for a developer to build something though five residential homes “makes things sticky,” he said.

“Clearly, St. Mark’s is something that’s gotta be done,” Chairman Jeff Robinson said. Development alone might not be attracted for just one parcel, it might take adjacent lots to make it viable, he added.

As part of his presentation, Phillips reviewed how a property qualifies for redevelopment, which requires any one of the following eight criteria:

• A – Building is in substandard, unsafe or dilapidated condition
• B – Industrial, commercial or manufacturing that has been discontinued or abandoned
• C – Unimproved, vacant land for at least 10 years not likely to be developed through private capital
• D – Building that is dilapidated or deleterious land use and other factors detrimental to the public
• E – Underutilized property related to condition that’s impeding property acquisition
• F – More than 5 acres which have been destroyed, resulting in material depreciation
• G – Designated Urban Enterprise Zone (UEZ), which does not apply to Rahway
• H – Consistent with smart growth planning principles

Most of the two-family homes in the study area were built around 1910 or earlier and may have even pre-dated zoning, which in the United States occurred around 1916, Phillips said. They’re still not consistent with current zoning, he added, and if they were razed, only single-family homes could be constructed under current zoning in the R-2 zone. A redevelopment area, however, would allow more leeway for the Redevelopment Agency and City Council to direct development.

Block 162, Lot 8, 288 Seminary Ave.

A three-story home built in 1910 with two dwelling units is in good condition judging from the exterior although it’s not a permitted use and does not comply with all bulk R-2 zone (single-family residential). There have been no code violations or police reports within the past five years, unlike other properties studied, Phillips said. Section 3 of the redevelopment law allows properties that are critical to or impede redevelopment to be included, he said, such as a “hole in the doughnut” within an area.

The parcel is sandwiched between parcels that qualify for redevelopment and three lots already within a redevelopment area so from a planning standpoint, Phillips said there is a basis to put it in the redevelopment area.

Block 162, Lot 9, 277 Hamilton Ave.

The 0.9-acre St. Mark’s Church property is the largest property in the study area, accounting for more than two-thirds of the total 1.4 acres. There have been many violations in the past five years, including multiple violations for an unsafe structure. The former church building was razed earlier this year, leaving only the former rectory building.

The property also has been the subject of a large number of police incidents, including 34 calls in the last five years, for such things as robbery, burglary, suspicious activity and mischief, according to Phillips. He said the property qualifies for redevelopment under criteria A (substandard, unsafe or dilapidated condition) and D (dilapidated or deleterious land use and other factors detrimental to the public).

Block 162, Lot 10, 308 Seminary Ave.

A three-story, single-family home built in 1900 sits on 0.1 acres with about 50 feet of frontage along Seminary Avenue. The building itself is in fair condition judging by the exterior but has been the subject of a number of property complaints in the last five years.

Phillips said the property would qualify under criteria D (dilapidated or deleterious land use and other factors detrimental to the public).

Block 162, Lot 11, 322 Seminary Ave.

A 2 1/2-story home built in 1870 is listed as a single-family home but it appears to be a multiple dwelling unit. The two-car garage that opens up directly onto the sidewalk is “not ideal,” Phillips said. While the building at the corner of Seminary Avenue and Gordon Place is in good condition, given its size, it was not intended for multiple dwellings.

“It’s a more difficult call for us,” he said, but despite its reasonably good condition — others are in much poorer condition — it likely qualifies under criteria D for violations and the illegal conversion.

Block 162, Lot 12, 1613-17 Gordon Place

A 2 1/2-story home built in 1870 has two units. The exterior is in poor condition with two single-car garages that also open directly onto the sidewalk. The building is in dilapidated condition and exterior defects, including broken windows, Phillips said. In the past five years, there have been about two dozen calls to the police, including burglary, suspicious activity and criminal mischief.

The property would qualify for redevelopment under criteria A (substandard, unsafe or dilapidated condition) and D (dilapidated or deleterious land use and other factors detrimental to the public).

Block 162, Lot 13, 308 Hamilton St.

A 2 1/2-story home, single-frame home was built in 1900. The exterior is in fair condition but does not comply with the R-2 zone (single-family). Like a few of the other properties, its one-car garage opens onto the sidewalk. There appears to be some “deferred maintenance” on the exterior but there have been no other property violations, which Phillips said came as a surprise to him. There also have been no police calls while other properties had 20 or 30 within the past five years.

The property at the corner of Hamilton and Gordon Place seems to need some work but is in a little better condition than others and by itself might not meet the criteria for redevelopment but like Lot 8 (288 Seminary), it does meet the Section 3 criteria. Leaving a remnant area with additional parcels that round out the block might impede redevelopment of the area, Phillips said.