Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Developers seek six‑month extension to study Roebling Block 2; mayor urges chance to build market‑rate housing
Loading...
Summary
Harvest Aid Group asked the Trenton City Council for a six‑month extension of site control to study and design redevelopment of Roebling Block 2, proposing to preserve Building 54 if tests show it can be saved while replacing other buildings with townhomes and an apartment; the mayor supported further study but council members pressed for updated structural and environmental reports.
Harvest Aid Group told the Trenton City Council on April 21 that it needs another six months of site control to complete structural, environmental and market analyses for Roebling Block 2.
“My name is Steve Patron. I’m the managing member of Harvest Aid Group,” said Steve Patron during the presentation, noting the team had commissioned a market study and that existing engineering information dated only to 2017. Patron asked the council to extend the company’s redevelopment designation so the team could complete concrete testing and other investigations required to confirm what parts of the complex can be salvaged.
Bill Warburg of Barton Partners walked council members through a conceptual plan that preserves the largest structure on the site, labeled Building 54, while replacing several other deteriorated structures with a mix of three‑story townhomes and a 36‑unit apartment building. Warburg said Building 54 is the prime candidate for adaptive reuse but that the developer must perform an “extensive structural inspection” and concrete testing before committing to preservation.
Mayor Rudy Garcia urged council to allow the additional time for developers to finalize plans. “This is an opportunity to create market‑rate housing … and transform that neighborhood,” he said, while acknowledging the high costs of major restorations elsewhere in the city.
Council members pressed for specifics: what the CME structural firm had recommended, which buildings were already demolished and when, how long a new assessment would take and how much testing would cost. The presenters said the 2017 CME report recommended demolition for some structures but indicated Building 54 remained potentially salvageable; detailed destructive and non‑destructive testing would take roughly 2 to 2½ months and the team estimated about $75,000 for the investigative program.
Environmental unknowns were a recurring concern. The presenters said there had been no comprehensive environmental work since 2017 in publicly available files and that their LSRP had flagged open DEP items; they described the environmental piece as a “wild card” that must be resolved as a precondition for financing.
Council members asked about unit types, parking and long‑term neighborhood fit. The developer said the plan was a concept mixing for‑sale and for‑rent townhomes and stacked townhouses, and that parking and design details would be refined with stakeholders and the council’s subcommittee.
No final vote to extend site control was recorded at the end of the presentation; council members said they expected the developer to return with updated reports and more specific proposals before any formal action. The next procedural step is for the developer to complete the structural and environmental testing and report back to council, which retains final approval authority.
