The meeting opened with a debate regarding the application for a property on Valley View Avenue, proposed by applicants Kishen and Cara Manglani. John Kaplan, representing objectors, raised concerns about the public’s awareness of the application, asserting that the notice failed to detail deviations from local ordinances and the historic status of the property. Kaplan argued, “Our main objection is we don’t think the public has the full understanding of what is going to happen in this application.”

In response, the applicant’s representative, Hillary Als from Dempsey Dempsey and Sheen, defended the notice’s compliance with statutory requirements, stating that it included necessary information such as the hearing’s date, time, place, and property identification. Als refuted claims about the property’s historic nature, noting it lacked recognition by local or state authorities.

The board deliberated on the sufficiency of the notice, with legal counsel affirming its compliance with the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL). Despite concerns, the board decided to adjourn the application to the September meeting without requiring further notice, a decision supported by legal counsel’s assertion of the notice’s adequacy.

The meeting then shifted to the extension request for the BMS GDP. A representative from Stevens and Lee outlined the need for a two-year extension of the GDP, originally approved in 2006 and comprehensively rewritten in 2019. The representative detailed completed and pending projects within the GDP, emphasizing enhancements like solar panels and improved landscaping. These efforts aimed to address community concerns, particularly after an ash tree die-off necessitated significant landscaping investments.

The board discussed the GDP’s role in the broader municipal land use plan, acknowledging the interconnectedness of the proposed developments. The conversation included the legal framework for extending the GDP, with references to statute 45.4 permitting extensions up to 20 years. The board appeared receptive, ultimately deciding to grant the requested extension, extending the timeline to June 30, 2027.

Public comments during the meeting raised further concerns about development impacts in East Summit. Residents Fritz Alam and Risa Gorlick voiced frustrations over increased density, traffic congestion, and inadequate infrastructure. Alam described the situation as “death by multiple paper cuts,” urging the board to advocate for neighborhood interests. Gorlick highlighted health concerns related to development over a former dry cleaning site, questioning the rationale behind allowing such projects.

These public comments underscored a perceived lack of transparency in the planning process. Residents expressed dissatisfaction with closed sessions discussing redevelopment projects, feeling excluded from decision-making. The board’s transition to a closed session to address pending litigation related to affordable housing obligations further fueled these concerns. The closed session aimed to maintain attorney-client privilege and discuss sensitive matters.