The historic designation of St. Andrew’s Church, located on Broadway, drew strong reactions from parish representatives, community members, and council participants. The discussion centered on whether the church’s significant historical and architectural features warranted preservation despite the financial challenges it posed. A legal representative for the parish objected to the historic designation, arguing that the ordinance was legally flawed and that the church’s architectural significance was overstated. They contended that the ordinance failed to meet the criteria for historic designation and questioned the historical property report’s adequacy, citing a lack of detailed substantiation.

Parishioners and representatives voiced diverse opinions. Patrick Costello, a parish trustee, expressed concern that pursuing historic designation would mislead the community into thinking a developer would restore the church, leading to costly litigation. He highlighted declining attendance and financial issues as key factors in the church’s closure, countering claims that the archdiocese was to blame. Meanwhile, Lenny Copz, another parishioner, praised the church’s historical significance and called for open dialogue on financial strategies, criticizing leadership for not leveraging resources from previous property sales.

Bob Russo, a long-time member of neighboring St. Mary’s Parish, reiterated the financial burden of restoring St. Andrew’s, noting the extensive repairs needed for safety and the church’s closure following the pandemic. He emphasized that the process surrounding St. Andrew’s closure had been transparent, countering claims of secrecy.

The council’s discussion also touched on the role of zoning ordinances, with Joe Ryan from the Bayonne Historic Preservation Commission emphasizing the city’s authority to use these ordinances to influence the church’s fate. He highlighted the city’s previous interventions to save elements from other historical buildings, such as bells from St. Joseph’s Church.

Amidst the debate, a council member pointed out procedural issues related to the planning board’s report, which had not been submitted within the required timeframe, complicating the council’s decision-making responsibilities.

The meeting also included a deliberation on the financial implications of the historic designation. A council member noted the absence of financial documentation regarding the church’s finances, urging a focus on facts rather than speculative financial narratives. The sentiment was echoed by other participants, emphasizing the need for clarity amidst emotionally charged discussions.

The discourse underscored the community’s divided perspectives on the church’s future, with some advocating for preservation to maintain its historical integrity and others stressing the financial burdens on the parish. The council’s decision on the church’s designation remains pending, with further discussions anticipated to reach an amicable resolution.

In addition to the church debate, the council addressed various ordinances related to city improvements. A significant ordinance approved was for a new water chiller and heating upgrades to City Hall, with a total appropriation of $3,250,000. Another ordinance amended a prior bond concerning road improvements, increasing the appropriation to $3,500,000.

Redevelopment plans were also on the agenda, with the approval of a plan for 361-373 Kennedy Boulevard.

The meeting further covered topics related to property maintenance, traffic regulations, and garage sale ordinances. Discussions included waiving fees for garage sales to ease financial burdens on residents while ensuring compliance with regulations to prevent disturbances.

Public comments featured concerns over rent control, with residents expressing fear of repercussions for speaking out. The council acknowledged these concerns, emphasizing the importance of tenant involvement in local governance and encouraging organized efforts to address housing issues.

Affordable housing obligations were a key topic, with the council discussing legislative requirements and the risk of builders’ remedy lawsuits.

The council also approved resolutions related to planning services agreements and the redevelopment of the old Irwin site.