In a portion of the meeting, the council explored the redevelopment of a six-story mixed-use building at the former site of St. Michael’s Church. The project, featuring 114 market-rate units and 2,700 square feet of retail space, is anticipated to cost $43.5 million. Discussion centered around a proposed tax abatement agreement, which the developer had initially requested for 30 years but was negotiated down to a 25-year pilot program. The agreement would feature a phased approach to conventional taxes, incorporating a 10% gross revenue tax in the first decade, increasing to 12% in the final five years. The council was informed that once stabilized, the project could generate approximately $373,000 annually in tax revenue, potentially rising to $650,000 by the 21st year of the pilot.

A resident named Keith Galant raised concerns about the fairness of property regulations in relation to the development. He highlighted that his property, unlike others nearby, had no buffer zone, expressing a sense of injustice about the project’s proximity to his home. Galant questioned whether different types of housing developments might offer better financial outcomes for the city and sought clarity on his legal options, requesting a dialogue with city officials to discuss his concerns further. Council members assured him that the planning board strives to balance individual property owner interests with broader community benefits.

Council attention then shifted to a related issue of parking for the new development. The proposed design necessitated extensive use of the ground floor for parking, including a triple-stacked configuration to maintain safety for residents. The council highlighted the importance of communicating parking restrictions clearly to future residents, including a prohibition on street parking and the need for such details to be explicitly stated in lease agreements. There was frustration about a perceived lack of resident notification regarding these restrictions, emphasizing the need for transparency.

Further complicating the development discussions was a analysis of the parking requirements for a separate project, contingent on an adjacent development’s completion. Councilman Carroll raised concerns about the dependency on the adjacent project meeting its parking obligations. Under the redevelopment plan, strict parking requirements were specified, with the closest potential site identified as the Holiday Tree and Trim property. The council stressed that deviations from these parking requirements would not be permitted, underlining the adherence to planning regulations.

In addition to the development projects, the council addressed the ongoing Holy Family project, aimed at consolidating services for underprivileged children and families under one roof. Despite delays due to the pandemic, the executive director of the Bayonne Economic Opportunity Foundation expressed optimism about beginning construction by October 2025, with an expected opening in 2026. Council members showed support for the project, recognizing its potential benefits for the community.

The meeting also featured a discussion on safety measures at the EMR Duroport facility, where protective mask mandates were discussed in the context of environmental inspections. A resident raised concerns about environmental hazards, although jurisdiction was noted to belong to state and regional authorities.

Finally, the council approved several resolutions, including a preliminary investigation for a redevelopment project at the Harbor Point site, despite concerns from a council member about the implications of such designations. Other resolutions involved extending deadlines for property redevelopment agreements and setting hearings for taxi cab license appeals.