The debate was intense, with members of the council and the public raising concerns about the project’s implications. Legal counsel for the council emphasized the need to seek advice from an independent financial advisor to assess whether a PILOT would be necessary for the project’s viability. Some members expressed reluctance to commit to a financial agreement, while others urged the council to explore all options. The discussion became more heated when the developer’s actions and intentions came into question, with some suggesting that the project had seen multiple delays and a change in stance regarding a PILOT agreement.

The public portion of the meeting included comments from residents who were concerned about the legality of the developer’s documents and the potential impact of new affordable housing laws. One resident questioned the ownership structure of the project and demanded transparency and thorough financial analysis. The developer’s representative was present and reiterated a willingness to negotiate with the town.

In addition to the development discussions, the meeting addressed concerns about public safety and infrastructure. These included the alignment of a walkway with ADA regulations at Matthews Field and the installation of seven seepage pits on Dorothy Ger and Pleasant to prevent water from seeping towards residents’ homes. A grant proposal for the renovation of Matthews Field was also presented, sparking debate about the necessity, cost, and impact on the community.

Further discussions included proposals to improve community services, like opening the town’s camp program to residents of Maywood, with logistics such as transportation by bus and participant numbers being debated. There were also updates from the senior meeting, which emphasized the success of recent activities and the anticipation of upcoming events.

The formation of a Shade Tree Committee was another significant topic, with three options presented to the council: forming an advisory committee, a committee with direct access to the Department of Public Works and the Business Administrator, or a commission with exclusive decision-making authority. Residents spoke in favor of establishing a commission, citing the difference it could make in the community and the importance of involving volunteers in tree planting.

During committee reports, a member highlighted the proactive tree maintenance efforts and the success of the police department’s tactics, which resulted in successful arrests. The Recreation Department faced challenges finding umpires and referees for games, while the American Legion discussed a veteran suicide awareness seminar. The Building Department reported on inspections and permits, and the Fire Department detailed their responses to calls.

The meeting also included the introduction of ordinances for first reading, concerning flood mitigation program requirements, regulations for storage of garbage and recyclables, and a smoking ordinance. These ordinances will be further deliberated in future meetings.

Concerns regarding the enforcement of a requirement for residents to shelter in place during a flood were raised, stressing the risk to emergency responders. The council discussed the need for clarity in the development project’s approval process, and the possibility of the planning board meeting with the council to ensure comprehensive understanding.

Several ordinances related to funding for township projects were introduced, including those for a home elevation project, energy efficiency improvements, field improvements, and road resurfacing. These will be further discussed in subsequent meetings.