Developer asks Trenton to extend 2008 agreement for train-station site; council and residents press for clarity on eminent domain and community commitments

A representative for Vista Center Development, which long has held a developer designation near Trenton's train station, told the City Council April 7 he seeks an extension so financing and project timelines can align after years of litigation and delays.

Daniel Brena told the council the project dates to 2008 and that phase one — now redesignated as a residential building — has final site-plan approval and is expected to start construction this year. "We're committed to the city for a very long time," Brena said. He said the first phase is about 100 apartments, with a potential total of 250–300 units across later phases.

Council members and residents used the public record to press the developer on several subjects: the disposition of two neighboring "mansions" proposed for demolition, whether a corner gas station would be preserved (Brena said it will), how much parking the new buildings will provide, whether units will be market‑rate or targeted to specific populations (Brena said market-rate workforce housing), and how many local contractors and suppliers would be hired.

The sharpest questioning centered on billboards and eminent domain. Brena said the original 2008 city agreement gave the city authority to pursue condemnation of two billboard parcels if needed, but he emphasized that his preference is to negotiate and offer relocation or alternative sites. "We have an alternative location. We're happy to work with them," he said. Several council members and public commenters called for legal counsel and thorough review before the council acts on any extension that could revive eminent‑domain authority.

Public commenters urged stricter enforcement of past redevelopment commitments and expressed skepticism about Ajax's track record. "As a taxpayer, I don't know whether the council's redevelopment attorney was in-house to hear the designated redeveloper's comments, but I hope you consult the law department," citizen Robin Vaughn said, urging the council to audit previous agreements for community give-backs and tax payments.

Brena acknowledged earlier incentives and said financing conditions and earlier litigation—including a lawsuit tied to a deficient redevelopment plan—had driven partners away and delayed the project. He said only one relocation might be necessary (billboards) and denied any plan to displace residents, while arguing that new housing will bring tax ratables and more street activity.

Council President and several members asked for a written analysis of eminent-domain implications and invited the city law department to brief council before any final action. The ordinance to amend the disposition agreement (ordinance 26-024) was introduced for first reading; several council members voted for introduction while one member abstained, noting a desire for more legal review and public transparency before a final vote.

If the council ultimately extends the designation, Brena said the developer intends to proceed with the approved phase-one plan, reconstruct sidewalks, curbs and lighting for safety, and coordinate with the city on traffic and pedestrian improvements near the train station.