At the forefront of the meeting was the debate over the subdivision of 22 lots adjacent to the waterfront park. Residents expressed concerns about the implications of this plan, fearing it could alter the character of the area and prioritize business interests over community spaces. One speaker highlighted the potential for these subdivisions to disrupt the existing balance between parkland and commercial areas, stressing, “It sure looks to me to be a setup,” while another countered, “It’s not a setup.” The debate focused on whether the subdivision was necessary or merely a maneuver to facilitate development.

The council clarified that the new lots would not alter the Green Acres park boundary but would create a subdivision between the park and the roadway. Despite assurances, skepticism persisted among residents who questioned the necessity of the subdivision and the financial costs involved, including engineering fees and potential surveys. Concerns were raised about the lack of clear delineation in the planning board application and whether this move was in the best interest of the community. A resident owning some of the lots expressed indifference, describing the creation of new lots as a potential burden rather than a benefit.

The public comment section underscored a collective apprehension about the preservation of the town’s character and the transparent handling of development plans. Calls were made for a pause in the planning process to allow further investigation into the subdivision’s implications.

Beyond the subdivision, the council addressed personnel management issues, notably involving Mr. Murphy, a code enforcement officer. Concerns were raised about his handling of zoning complaints and procedural adherence, particularly regarding undelivered summonses. A council member questioned the lack of documentation and progressive discipline, emphasizing the need for a structured approach to employee management. The borough attorney stressed the importance of a well-documented disciplinary record to support any actions against employees, cautioning against sudden disciplinary escalations without prior documentation.

The meeting also delved into the introduction of new ordinances, including one related to the Film Ready New Jersey initiative. The deputy clerk presented the borough’s progress in becoming compliant with this state program, designed to enhance the municipality’s attractiveness to film production companies. With four out of five certification steps completed, the council moved to introduce the necessary ordinance amendments. This initiative, sponsored by the New Jersey Motion Picture and Television Commission, promises economic benefits by promoting local businesses to film crews, potentially increasing local economic activity.

Another topic was the municipal budget, with residents raising questions about levy increases for parks and public purposes. During the public comment period, residents expressed gratitude for the council’s efforts in recognizing community contributions, particularly honoring local art influencers. Concerns about traffic and safety were also prominent, with residents highlighting issues such as speeding, illegal turns, and inadequate signage. Suggestions for traffic-calming measures, such as speed bumps and improved signage, were made to enhance pedestrian safety.

The meeting concluded with discussions on procedural governance and personnel management, reflecting ongoing tensions within the council regarding the proper handling of complaints and violations. Calls were made for improved transparency and adherence to established protocols to address public concerns effectively.