A key point of contention was Ordinance 2025-28, which sought to amend business zone standards by limiting harm reduction services to a specific IN-1 zoning area. This proposed change sparked opposition from several community members who argued it would restrict essential public health services. Notably, Inza Aosta, the chief legal counsel for Complete Care Health Network, criticized the ordinance for confining harm reduction services to a disproportionately small area. Aosta emphasized that such restrictions would hinder access to critical services like syringe access programs, which play a vital role in preventing diseases and reducing overdose deaths. The ordinance’s limitations were seen as undermining the state’s Harm Reduction Act, which grants the New Jersey Department of Health sole authority over these programs. Aosta stressed that the ordinance could create significant barriers for vulnerable populations who rely on these services.

The council also heard from various other speakers, including a resident who pointed out the recent amendments to the Harm Reduction Act in New Jersey. This amendment removed municipal authority to approve or reject harm reduction programs, placing regulatory control with the state. The speaker argued that the ordinance conflicted with state law by proposing restrictions that would negate the intent of the Harm Reduction Act. They articulated the importance of accessible harm reduction programs in preventing health crises among populations lacking stable housing or transportation.

Concerns about the zoning changes extended beyond harm reduction services. Resident Kirsten Ellison expressed apprehension over changes in the B3 zone near her home, questioning the need for rezoning agricultural land to permit mental health or treatment facilities. Council member Tanetta clarified that the B3 designation already permitted mental health services, and the ordinance was intended to clarify existing allowances rather than introduce new restrictions.

Betsy Powell and Rachel Campbell, representing local harm reduction and treatment centers, voiced similar concerns about the ordinance’s impact on vulnerable communities. They highlighted the potential health risks and fatalities that could result from reduced access to care. Campbell remarked on the increasing trend in substance use and reiterated the comprehensive nature of harm reduction centers, which provide referrals for rehabilitation and support services in addition to syringe access.

The public comments underscored a clear divide between the need for community safety and the necessity for accessible harm reduction services. Residents like Joel Martinez, who lives near a medical facility housing a methadone clinic, shared distressing experiences with his property becoming a “magnet for disturbances.” Martinez detailed issues of trespassing, illegal activities, and safety hazards, including the devastating loss of his service dog due to rat poison on his property. He urged the council to take immediate action, such as installing a fence to mitigate the impacts of the clinic on the neighborhood.

Despite the opposition and concerns raised, the council moved forward with Ordinance 2025-28, adopting it after a roll call vote with unanimous support. The ordinance amends prior regulations concerning business and institutional zone standards. The decision was made with the understanding that the ordinance could be revisited during future assessments of the master plan, anticipated in the summer.