At the forefront of the meeting was the proposed amendment to the existing Redevelopment plan. The amendment under consideration would shift the property’s use to purely residential and augment the maximum number of dwelling units from 80 to 104. This increase sparked a debate on the project’s density and its potential strain on local infrastructure, including school taxes and traffic. Board members and residents alike weighed in on the proposed density’s appropriateness relative to the surrounding zones, with particular attention on the impact of the expanded footprint on neighboring properties and the historic development pattern of the city.

Parking, a perennial urban concern, was also a point of contention. The plan stipulated 1.2 parking spaces per residential unit, but residents and board members expressed skepticism regarding the sufficiency of parking spaces, especially considering the likelihood of units having multiple vehicles. The positioning of the building’s entrances and the potential traffic increase on local streets, including concerns for safety and congestion near an elementary school, were also discussed.

Affordable housing, a critical aspect of urban planning, was another point during the meeting. There were discussions on how the affordable housing units within the development would contribute to the city’s obligations, and questions were raised regarding the eligibility of these units for credit against the city’s future quotas. The specific square footage requirements for affordable units, as dictated by the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency, were also scrutinized.

Further, the board deliberated on the development’s sustainability features, specifically the integration of electric vehicle (EV) parking spaces.

The potential inclusion of commercial spaces within the predominantly residential development was also a topic of intense dialogue. Some board members and residents argued that maintaining commercial elements would be beneficial for the city, fostering a vibrant and functional mix of uses. However, others pointed to available retail locations on nearby Memorial Park and Main Street.

Residents voiced their concerns about the redevelopment’s scale and its architectural integration with the existing neighborhood character. The architectural design’s inward-facing nature was criticized, with calls for setbacks to enhance the streetscape’s interactivity and preserve the neighborhood’s fabric.

As the meeting progressed, the viability of the redevelopment plan was questioned, particularly the financial aspects. It was noted that no financial analysis had been conducted to ascertain the feasibility of the development under the new plan. There was speculation that the potential developer might request a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT), but no definitive action had been taken.

The public segment of the meeting allowed for residents to seek clarifications and express their opinions. A witness, referred to as Beth, explained various aspects of the development, including parking arrangements and building height requirements. Public comments also touched on concerns about tractor-trailer parking on Langford Street and the impact on parking availability.