Roselle Park Council Debates Redevelopment Plans Amid Safety Concerns at DPW
-
Meeting Type:
City Council
-
Meeting Date:
09/05/2024
-
Recording Published:
09/06/2024
-
Duration:
112 Minutes
-
State:
New Jersey
-
County:
Union County
-
Towns:
Roselle Park
- Meeting Overview:
The Roselle Park Borough Council meeting addressed several issues, including amendments to a redevelopment plan, safety concerns at the Department of Public Works (DPW), and various community initiatives. The discussions were marked by strong opinions and detailed deliberations.
One notable issue of the evening centered on the safety of the DPW for its employees. During the public comment portion, resident Eric Kennedy raised concerns about the facility’s safety, pressing the council for a straightforward answer on whether the DPW was “100% safe for all employees.” The council’s response was non-committal, with one member indicating uncertainty about the simplicity of the question. Kennedy referenced a 2018 report that he claimed highlighted numerous issues within the building and mentioned that “eight people in a row have died of cancer consecutively from that place.” He insisted on having this matter on the record, expressing frustration over what he perceived as a lack of action regarding health and safety concerns at the DPW.
The conversation escalated as Kennedy attempted to discuss specific personnel issues, which the council deemed inappropriate for the public forum. The legal advisor emphasized that such discussions should not occur in this setting, yet Kennedy persisted, citing the urgency of the health and safety situation for DPW employees. Another resident, George Ramirez, raised concerns regarding the potential contamination of dirt dumped at the DPW. The council member addressed the inquiry by stating that all dirt moved on or off-site must be accompanied by a tag verifying its origin and status.
Despite the council’s attempts to reassure residents about safety and compliance, the public comment segment ended without a resolution to these issues.
In a discussion on local development, the council debated a redevelopment plan for block 606, focusing on permitted and prohibited uses, particularly concerning residential and hotel facilities. One participant expressed frustration with the amount of residential development in the town, advocating for a strict commercial use designation for the area. The sentiment was echoed by others, who opposed the idea of a hotel, emphasizing the need for commercial and retail space on Westfield Avenue.
The discussion explored the possibility of modifying the redevelopment plan to eliminate residential use entirely, with suggestions to incorporate specific stipulations that would limit development to three stories and prohibit residential units. It was clarified that comments and recommendations from the council could be reflected in the record and incorporated into the plan before sending it to the land use board for further consideration.
A point of contention arose regarding the inclusion of hotels in the redevelopment plan. One member expressed the view that the council was not in agreement about allowing hotels, leading to a motion to prohibit hotels from the redevelopment plan. This motion was seconded. The proposal to amend the definition of retail services to exclude hotels and motels was discussed, resulting in a split vote. Ultimately, the decision was made to keep the hotel definition as it was for the time being, allowing for the possibility of revisiting this issue later.
Further deliberation focused on the height and use of buildings, particularly the maximum allowable height of three or four stories. There were suggestions to limit the height to three stories, especially after the decision to exclude residential uses. The council acknowledged the complexities involved in utilizing the ground floor for additional purposes, such as utility rooms and elevators, to maximize space for retail while ensuring adequate parking. The idea of sending the matter to the municipal land use board for further examination was proposed, recognizing that more time was needed to delve into the specifics.
Other topics included a proclamation for Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, where the Mayor acknowledged the presence of the Vitality Family and emphasized their contribution toward raising awareness about childhood cancers. The proclamation highlighted that childhood cancer is the leading cause of disease-related death among children, with one in 285 children diagnosed by age 20 and approximately 15,000 children diagnosable annually.
The council also discussed various infrastructure projects, including the final phase of a major upgrade project by Elizabeth Town Gas and New Jersey American Water’s lead line abatement program. The 2024 Capital Roads Project was nearing substantial completion, with upcoming improvements to Grant Avenue planned to occur during overnight hours to minimize disruption.
The meeting also touched on community events and initiatives. The recreation department reported successful summer events for seniors and announced upcoming events, including the Hispanic Latino Festival and the annual September 11 Remembrance service. The Mayor advocated for early voting locations within the borough, emphasizing the importance of accessibility for residents.
Joseph Signorello III
City Council Officials:
Joseph Signorello Jr., Gregory Johnson, Joseph Petrosky, Rosanna Antonuccio-Lyons, Khanjan S. Patel, Jay Robaina
-
Meeting Type:
City Council
-
Meeting Date:
09/05/2024
-
Recording Published:
09/06/2024
-
Duration:
112 Minutes
-
Notability Score:
Routine
Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:
-
State:
New Jersey
-
County:
Union County
-
Towns:
Roselle Park
Recent Meetings Nearby:
- 10/10/2024
- 10/10/2024
- 58 Minutes
- 10/10/2024
- 10/10/2024
- 37 Minutes
- 10/10/2024
- 10/10/2024
- 30 Minutes