The Hopewell Borough Planning Board on Wednesday night began its formal review of the Hopewell 57 redevelopment proposal, launching what board leaders said will be a multi-meeting process for one of the most consequential development applications the borough has ever considered.
Borough Hall was filled for the nearly three-hour meeting, which marked the first night of testimony on the redevelopment of the former industrial property at 57 Hamilton Avenue and the adjacent parking lot across Somerset Street. The project, known as Hopewell 57, is proposed as a mixed residential development that would include both market-rate and affordable housing.
The redevelopment proposes 120 residential units across two primary housing types. Plans call for 42 townhouse units and 78 apartment units housed in a four-story mid-rise apartment building. The apartments and townhomes would be distributed across the former industrial site along Hamilton Avenue. Consistent with the borough’s redevelopment plan and state affordable housing requirements, 20 percent of the units would be deed-restricted as affordable housing. The project also includes on-site parking, including the existing lot across the street, internal pedestrian circulation, and shared amenities intended for residents.
Planning Board Chair Peter Macholdt emphasized early in the meeting that the board would proceed deliberately, with testimony presented in phases over multiple hearings.
“This is a very consequential development application for the borough,” Macholdt said, explaining that the board would hear expert testimony first, followed by structured opportunities for public questions limited to the subject matter presented that evening. Broader public comment and deliberation, he said, would come later in the process.
The board is expected to meet again on Feb. 18 to focus on affordable housing issues and will resume the developer’s presentations on March 4, when testimony on traffic and other outstanding topics is anticipated.
Applicant Introduces Project and Process
The applicant’s case opened with testimony from Jeffrey Albert, one of the partners on the project, who provided an overview of the project and described the multi-year process that led to the current proposal.
Albert said the redevelopment plan had been shaped through extensive collaboration with borough officials and advisory bodies, including the Planning Board, Borough Council, the redevelopment subcommittee, the financial agreement working group, the Historic Preservation Committee, and the borough’s fire official. He characterized the process as iterative and responsive, with feedback from those groups influencing building placement, design, and site layout.
Albert also walked the board through the project’s overall vision and an initial look at the proposed buildings, outlining how the redevelopment would replace a long-vacant industrial site with a residential neighborhood intended to integrate with the surrounding borough.
Engineering Testimony on Site Design
The second major presenter was Paul Winters, a consulting engineer who was introduced as having more than 20 years of experience providing professional testimony before planning and zoning boards across New Jersey.
Winters’ testimony focused on the technical aspects of the proposal, including site layout, circulation, and how the development would function operationally. He described how pedestrian paths, internal access points, and shared amenities were designed to manage movement within the site while minimizing impacts on surrounding streets.
Among the features discussed were town homes and rental units, centralized package delivery areas, resident amenities such as a pet grooming and washing room intended for on-site use only, and pedestrian connections to Somerset Street and Hamilton Avenue. Winters said these elements were designed to serve residents without generating additional outside traffic.
Public Questions, Carefully Scoped
After each testimony concluded, the board opened the floor to public questions, with Macholdt repeatedly reminding residents that questions must relate only to the material presented that night.
Several residents asked about sidewalk connectivity, school bus access, and how future traffic patterns might affect Somerset Street and surrounding neighborhoods. Board members and the applicant’s professionals responded by noting that traffic engineering testimony had not yet been presented and would be addressed at a later hearing.
“If we haven’t gotten into traffic yet, we’re not going to answer traffic questions tonight,” Macholdt said, stressing that the board wanted to hear from the appropriate experts before engaging in detailed discussion on those issues.
Residents also raised concerns about the accessibility of redevelopment documents on the borough’s website. Board professionals acknowledged the issue and said efforts were underway to improve organization and public access to materials as the review continues.
Residents Raise Early Concerns as Review Begins
Although public questions were limited to the material presented Tuesday night, the volume of attendance and the nature of the questions underscored the level of community interest — and anxiety — surrounding the Hopewell 57 proposal.
Several residents asked about pedestrian safety, sidewalk continuity, and how traffic and circulation would function once the development is built. Board members reiterated that traffic, parking, and circulation impacts were intentionally scheduled for later testimony, and that no conclusions would be drawn before hearing from the project’s traffic engineer.
Other questions reflected frustration with the complexity of the review process itself. Residents noted difficulty locating materials online and understanding how various documents — including the redevelopment plan, site plans, financial agreement materials, and technical studies — fit together. Board professionals said the project is being reviewed under a redevelopment framework previously adopted by the borough and acknowledged that additional efforts are needed to make documents easier to navigate for the public. The borough’s website will continue to be updated with documents as they are available. Hard copies are available to be viewed at borough hall.
Board members emphasized that Tuesday’s meeting represented only the opening phase of a multi-step review. Issues such as traffic and parking demand, and infrastructure impacts will be addressed in dedicated testimony at future hearings, with opportunities for public questions tied to each topic.
“This is the beginning, not the end,” Macholdt said, reiterating that the board’s role is to build a complete record before making any decisions.
What Comes Next
The Planning Board will reconvene later this month to focus specifically on affordable housing requirements associated with Round 4 affordable housing deadlines. Testimony on traffic, parking, and circulation — among the most anticipated components of the review — is expected to begin when the hearing continues on March 4.
Macholdt emphasized that the board has made no decisions and that the review remains in its early stages.
“This is not something that gets decided in one night,” he said. “We want to hear everything, and we want the public to have a full opportunity to participate.”
