At the heart of the meeting was a redevelopment proposal by Asbury Park Apartments and Resort LLC, targeting Block 4201 Lots 26 and 7. The project includes two one-bedroom, 49 two-bedroom, and 43 three-bedroom units, featuring innovative parking solutions with stacked and automated systems. Despite attempts by the developers to address community feedback, including reducing the building’s lot coverage and altering design elements, residents remained apprehensive.

The public participation segment was intense, with numerous residents expressing concerns about the development’s impact on their community. Gabriela Kinata, a local resident, argued that the project would disrupt airflow, sightlines, and exacerbate flooding issues, contradicting the Waterfront Redevelopment plan’s objectives. She criticized the plan’s density, noting that the proposed 94 units with 230 bedrooms on four lots starkly contrasted with the Asbury Ocean Club’s full block with fewer bedrooms and more parking spaces.

Frank Cochinada, another resident, emphasized the inappropriateness of the building’s proposed eight-story height, arguing it is inconsistent with the neighborhood’s character, where buildings typically range from two to five stories. Cochinada also questioned the adequacy of the 152 parking spaces for the development, voicing concerns about increased congestion.

The development’s compatibility with historic neighborhood structures was another focal point. Roger Mumford, a developer with experience in the area, criticized the building’s height and design. Gloria Peretti and Ben Hall echoed these sentiments, highlighting potential negative impacts on ocean views and quality of life.

The discussion also touched on broader implications for Asbury Park’s urban landscape. Residents like Denise Nadell and Kathy Herwitz questioned the precedent such a high-density development could set, emphasizing the importance of aligning new projects with the city’s historical and community values. Concerns extended to practical issues like parking and traffic congestion, exacerbated by the proposed development’s scale.

In response, the developers outlined various adjustments made to accommodate neighboring properties, including the addition of side yards and the removal of certain design elements. However, these efforts did little to quell the community’s fears, with attorney Timothy B. Midlan, representing adjacent homeowners, highlighting the development’s proximity issues and lack of sensitivity to the existing neighborhood.

Beyond the development debate, the meeting addressed other community concerns. Susan Midus from Food and Water Watch urged the council to support a New Jersey legislative bill under the Superfund Act to hold polluters accountable for environmental damage. The proposed legislation could provide funding for municipalities facing climate challenges, a point emphasized by Midus as particularly beneficial for Asbury Park.

Kylie Mandville, a social work intern, raised issues regarding Asbury Park’s sanctuary city status in light of recent federal directives affecting immigration enforcement near schools. She highlighted the fear these directives instilled in local families and called for clarification on city ordinances to protect vulnerable community members.

The meeting also featured input from the Asbury Park Complete Streets Coalition, represented by Polly Shula, who advocated for the adoption of a Vision Zero policy aimed at reducing traffic-related injuries and fatalities. The council responded favorably, recognizing the importance of safer environments for pedestrians and cyclists.

Environmental concerns were also prominent, with a representative from the Environmental Shade Commission critiquing the proposed development’s landscaping plans. The representative stressed the need for more greenery to mitigate flooding and enhance the area’s ecological resilience. A procedural issue regarding the lack of a shade study was also raised, highlighting potential overshadowing effects from taller buildings.