The most contentious topic of the meeting was the informal review process for Benjamin F. Rizley Jr.’s application. Rizley sought an informal review to discuss a potential subdivision of his property, currently used as a single-family residence. However, the board noted that informal reviews are typically not appropriate for zoning issues, as they do not involve formal testimony or public notice. Legal counsel advised that state law does not provide for informal reviews in zoning board matters, leading to a debate among board members.

One member emphasized the risk of setting a negative precedent by allowing an informal review without adhering to proper legal procedures. There was a consensus that informal discussions could lead to confusion and frustration among residents if no formal action or decision resulted from the meeting. The board was particularly concerned about creating a perceived obligation to adhere to opinions expressed during an informal review, even though such opinions would not be legally binding.

The discussion also touched on a letter submitted by residents of the 22100 blocks of Liverpool and Philadelphia Avenues, expressing opposition to Rizley’s proposal for a subdivision variance. The letter, read into the record by the chair, highlighted concerns about the impact on the neighborhood’s aesthetic and continuity, as well as potential effects on property values. The chair clarified that while the letter could not be considered testimony, it was acknowledged due to its public record status.

Further complicating matters was the distinction between taxable lots and development lots. Rizley’s architect attempted to clarify the historical context of the property, referencing previous tax map designations. The concept of “merger” in zoning, where two parcels that do not comply with zoning requirements may be considered a single lot for development purposes, was also discussed. The chair reiterated that feedback during the informal review should not mislead the applicant into believing that any assurances or positive feedback would guarantee success in a formal application.

The meeting also included discussions about various grants aimed at tree maintenance and improvement projects within the city. A notable federal grant of $1 million was dedicated to tree maintenance on the city’s avenues, complemented by a state grant linked to the Inflation Reduction Act. The grants aim to address the poor condition of many older trees and include a significant allocation for replanting and maintenance. Additionally, a smaller grant for training will allow city residents to attend the New Jersey Shade Tree Federation conference.

The conversation shifted to a proposal concerning the redevelopment of a contaminated area known as the Gateway site. This area is under consideration for designation as a Brownfield Redevelopment Area, which would unlock funding opportunities for cleaning and developing the site. The board emphasized the importance of securing a development partner to mitigate financial risks associated with potential cleanup costs.

In addition to the tree maintenance and redevelopment discussions, the board touched on the ongoing bike path expansion project. The current design integrates pervious pavement to meet water quality requirements, though concerns were raised regarding maintenance responsibilities. The county expressed limitations in maintaining this type of pavement, prompting a request for the city to commit to cleaning it up to four times a year using their vacuum sweeper truck.

One resident highlighted the environmental, emotional, and social benefits of trees in urban settings and reiterated the necessity for a tree inventory to comply with state regulations.

The meeting also addressed the redevelopment plan connected to Dr. Try, who has requested to update his plan to allow for the cultivation of recreational cannabis alongside boat building activities. The current redevelopment plan reflects outdated regulations that only permit medical cannabis cultivation. A revised ordinance has been drafted to align with current state laws, though Dr. Try has yet to commence operations due to a lack of necessary city licenses and approvals.