The most contentious discussion centered on Ordinance MC 2024-45, which pertains to a large-scale redevelopment project involving 501 units and 706 parking spaces. A resident from Myrtle Avenue highlighted severe traffic and environmental concerns, emphasizing a lack of updated traffic studies and the presence of contamination from previous uses. The resident also criticized the absence of bilingual public notices, which they argued undermines public trust. They advocated for responsible development that prioritizes public health and environmental sustainability.

Echoing these sentiments, another speaker from East Front Street described the situation as driven by “greed” and called for a pause on further developments. This individual urged the council to consider the long-term impact on the community’s quality of life, particularly the strain on existing infrastructure and the potential for increased traffic congestion.

Marie, a resident concerned about Resolution R 34324, focused on the potential removal of trees in a four-acre wooded area on Woodland Avenue. She emphasized the risk of flooding and the negative effects on wildlife and the neighborhood. Marie questioned the ownership structure and the number of townhouses to be constructed, highlighting the implications for affordable housing. Another resident, Julie, shared her experience with previous developments that caused flooding and disruption, particularly a gas line installation that affected local traffic and residents. She expressed frustration with the lack of affordable housing in the proposed developments, noting that the projected prices for new homes would not be accessible to many residents.

A real estate professional warned about the steep slope of the land, which could pose risks for first responders. They pointed out that previous developments had led to significant unresolved issues. Christa, another resident, emphasized the importance of preserving wooded areas to mitigate against worsening weather patterns and severe storms. She argued that urban heat islands are exacerbated by increased development and urged the council to consider the long-term impacts on the community’s quality of life.

Further discussions involved environmental concerns related to proposed developments on Woodland Avenue and West N Street. Speakers urged the council to prioritize tree preservation and environmental education, with one resident, Gloria Bowski, calling for the government to “put your money where your mouth is” regarding climate discussions. Kathleen Ni echoed these concerns, urging the council to pause further development to evaluate the implications on community spaces and children’s play areas. She emphasized the need for foresight in development planning, especially regarding the potential flooding impacts on newly constructed facilities like the track.

In response to these concerns, a council member prompted the director of Economic Development to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed developments. The director clarified that the current phase involves a study, not a finalized development plan, and assured that environmental assessments, including stormwater runoff considerations, would be part of this study. Certain areas of the parcel cannot be developed to protect wetlands, providing some reassurance to concerned residents.

The topic of affordable housing was also discussed, with clarifications made regarding the definition of affordability in relation to the area’s median income. The director explained that affordable housing in the region is defined using area median income metrics, which for Plainfield is approximately $70,000. The anticipated pricing for affordable units was discussed, estimated to fall between $350,000 and $400,000, with specific deed restrictions in place to maintain affordability and ensure the units remain accessible to local residents.

Public comments also touched on various other community issues. A resident expressed frustration over a retention area identified as a flood zone and the potential exacerbation of flooding due to development. Nancy F. raised concerns about air quality, noting that Plainfield ranks poorly compared to other New Jersey cities, with nearly double the asthma rate of Union County. She condemned any plans to remove trees, which are vital for air quality, arguing that “to take down a grove of trees that can help restore some air quality is unconscionable.”

Concerns about public safety were also prominent. Pamela Dunn highlighted the absence of crossing guards and inadequate street signage, emphasizing the need for proper painting of pedestrian crossings. Another resident, a bus driver for special needs children, echoed these concerns, stressing the importance of safety measures for children amidst changing demographics and ongoing developments.