The Bayonne Municipal Council on Nov. 12 postponed consideration of a redevelopment ordinance for 626–628 Avenue E and approved separate actions to allow the city to close on phase‑1 of a large waterfront redevelopment and to adopt an amended redevelopment plan for the Peninsula at Bayonne Harbor.

Resident Janice Mattis told the council she did not receive notice of earlier hearings and said she had litigated the same project in 2019 and prevailed in court; she asked why the matter returned to the council. After Mattis asked the council to review court filings, the council voted to postpone the Avenue E ordinance to the December meeting. The motion to postpone was seconded and recorded as approved by roll call (ayes recorded from Booker, Carroll, Perez, Weimer and LaPalouse). The council president said staff will provide the court decision and complaint documents to members before the next hearing.

On separate items the council approved an ordinance authorizing the sale of city‑owned property identified as Block 830 Lot 2.02 (phase‑1 of the Bayonne Partners project) and also approved an amended redevelopment plan for the Peninsula (Block 830) following lengthy public comment. Redevelopment counsel John Wojciscala told the council the phase‑1 closing covers 240 units and that environmental remediation work to remove a stockpiled, contaminated soil pile on the site had been completed; he said the city incurred remediation costs of about $400,000 that will be credited against the purchase price at closing.

Several residents told the council they were concerned the city is ‘leaving money on the table’ by honoring sale prices negotiated in 2016 rather than renegotiating to current market rates. Sharon Nedrowski said the city’s original agreement dated to 2016 and that additional unit approvals since then increased the developer’s upside without a corresponding renegotiation of land price; she called the current terms a “fire sale.” Other residents—Pat Desmond, Tom Solari and others—urged the council to proceed with the sale, arguing the property has sat vacant for years and that development would bring jobs and activity. Speakers also pushed for union labor preferences and local subcontracting by the redeveloper.

Council members and staff responded that the city has a binding contract with the redeveloper, that the developer was not in breach and that the city has statutory and contractual obligations to deliver clean title and property in a condition ready for conveyance. Staff explained that, because the city had not completed required obligations in prior years (including addressing environmental conditions), the original schedule and prices remained operative; redevelopment counsel said the negotiated credits and phased purchase structure were part of earlier amendments. On the question of mandating project labor agreements or inclusionary affordable‑housing set‑asides, staff said there are legal and financing limits: some mandatory labor or affordable‑housing terms typically require the municipality to have a financial stake (for example a redevelopment bond or other city contribution) or depend on the form of the redevelopment/financial agreement and on state law.

The amended Peninsula plan (O5) was debated at length. Residents raised concerns about infrastructure—pedestrian access, a promised ferry, and traffic management on the former Military Ocean Terminal (MOT) site—and about whether sufficient affordable and workforce units are being secured. Council members said they share the goal of more affordable units but that the city’s fourth‑round Mount Laurel obligations, state definitions of area median income, and the structure of financing programs shape what the municipality can require. Director Skillinder and other staff noted the city is working on shared‑service agreements with the Bayonne Housing Authority and other mechanisms to expand affordable housing and to use the city’s affordable‑housing trust fund for rehabilitation projects already in the pipeline.

Council members indicated they will provide additional documents requested by public speakers (including court filings related to the 2019 zoning case), and they voted to finalize the phase‑1 sale authorization and the Peninsula amendment while the Avenue E item was postponed to the next meeting. The council also asked staff to circulate language—and to continue discussions—about community benefits, local hiring and mitigation measures for traffic and pedestrian safety as subsequent phases return for approvals.

The meeting closed after the council adopted related redevelopment resolutions and consent items. The council president said staff will provide the requested records and noted that additional ordinances and site‑plan applications for later phases will return to the planning board and council for further review.