The developer’s attorney, Jason Tuel, presented a closing statement outlining the unique aspects of the site and the proposed development, emphasizing compliance with zoning requirements and highlighting a structured approach to the appeal process. Tuel addressed issues such as parking, traffic, light, air, open space, and stormwater management, asserting that the applicant provided unrebutted testimony on these matters. The focus was also on the relaxed standard of review for the density variance cited by the applicant, referencing case law to support the position on accommodating additional density.

During the meeting, a speaker raised concerns about misinformation presented at zoning board hearings and the lack of robust conditions to protect tenants from eviction. The speaker underscored the need for greater controls and resources to support vulnerable tenants and prevent substantial public detriment. The concerns were echoed by other participants who argued that the zoning board’s approval should not undermine the applicability of landlord-tenant laws in New Jersey.

The debate intensified over the interpretation of the positive and negative criteria for granting variances. While some members argued that benefits such as affordable housing and flood mitigation should be considered as positives, others contended that these were required elements and should not be seen as additional benefits. The board’s legal authority was also scrutinized, with the board’s attorney pointing out that their powers are limited by municipal land use law, which does not extend to rent control issues. Nevertheless, the resolution of approval was required to comply with anti-eviction laws.

Further, a council member expressed concerns about the 100% lot coverage variance due to the increased unit count and the need for additional parking spaces. The developer countered that the variance was necessary to meet parking requirements and enhance stormwater management with the installation of a green roof. The council member’s concern centered on the project’s potential negative impact on the community, particularly the displacement of tenants.

The meeting also touched upon the alignment of the project with the master plan’s density factor and unit count, with the developer asserting that both positive and negative criteria were met without substantial detriment to the public good. However, the issue of rent control surfaced again, with the developer stating it was not a zoning issue but rather a matter for the board or city council.

The discussions culminated with plans to schedule a follow-up meeting to allow for more time to address the complexities of tenant displacement, the interpretation of negative impacts on the community, and the development’s compliance with zoning and anti-eviction laws. The board members underscored the need for a thorough deliberation on the conditions to be imposed on the developer to ensure legal compliance and protect tenants’ rights.