Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Redevelopment Western Edge topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Hoboken council affirms Western Edge redevelopment ordinance B-754 after public hearing and objections

3114678 · April 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Hoboken City Council on April 24 adopted ordinance B-754 reaffirming the Western Edge redevelopment plan after a public hearing. Speakers raised concerns about process timing, updated traffic and soils studies, and disclosure of potential conflicts; the planning board had earlier found the ordinance consistent with the master plan.

The Hoboken City Council adopted ordinance B-754 on April 24, 2025, reaffirming and re-endorsing the Western Edge redevelopment plan after a public hearing and despite objections from some attorneys and residents asking for more time and additional studies.

The ordinance was placed for hearing and final reading at a special meeting called for April 24; the council president said the planning board had conducted a consistency review and “unanimously . . . found that this ordinance was consistent with the master plan and the land use element.” Other items noticed for the special meeting were carried to the council’s May 7 regular meeting, the president said.

Public commenters at the hearing urged different outcomes. Manuel Rivera Solaire, a member of the public who attended the planning board meeting, said he believed the planning board handled its review properly: “I believe that that it was done in a proper manner,” and asked the council to help clarify matters for other residents who said they were confused by the materials.

Matthew Ross, an attorney who identified himself as a partner at Petipat Avano representing Insera Supermarkets and its landlord (and also representing Palisades Cliff Protection Alliance in related filings), urged delay. Ross said his clients submitted a traffic and parking report dated April 23 and asked that the council consider updated analyses reflecting 2025 conditions. “My client wants to have a careful review of parking requirements, traffic and construction staging under the current day conditions to protect the existing property owners and businesses in the redevelopment zone,” Ross said. He also said his office had sought an adjournment earlier in the day and asked for disclosure of any conflicts by council members voting on the ordinance.

Ashley Morgan, an attorney with Chase and Lamprello, Mallon and Capuzzo representing Union City, echoed concerns about timing and public participation: she said the ordinance process “is rushed as in it is not allowing the public an adequate opportunity to fully review the amendments.” Lisa Lomelo, speaking for the Doric, posed questions about whether plan documents had been updated since much of the material dates to earlier in the decade and asked whether soils and ground conditions had been reassessed; the council president replied that the original plan was adopted in 2015 and that there have been eight prior amendments, and said site-specific reviews (for example, for a proposed 930 Monroe project in the area) would provide additional soils and site information during planning-board site-plan review.

Not all speakers sought delay. Pat Waiters, a resident, said she has followed the project since 2017 and urged the council to move forward, saying ongoing delays were unfair to developers and the public.

After the public comment period closed, the council proceeded to a vote and adopted ordinance B-754. The record does not show a formal mover or seconder for the adoption in the transcript. During the roll-call portion of the vote the transcript records affirmative votes from Mr. Cone, Mr. Javor, President Zano, Mr. Quintero and President Doyle, and the council president announced that “the ordinance is adopted.”

The council president and staff noted that additional planning-board hearings and site-plan reviews will follow if the ordinance remains in effect for specific projects in the Western Edge area. The other three items noticed for the special meeting were carried to the regular May 7 meeting.