After months of hearings, expert testimony and persistent public opposition, the Hopewell Borough Planning Board voted June 10 to approve the Hopewell 57 redevelopment project, concluding one of the most closely watched land-use applications in recent borough history.
The board approved the application with numerous conditions following a lengthy deliberation that repeatedly returned to a central question raised throughout the review process: how much authority the Planning Board actually had to alter a redevelopment project that already complied with the borough’s redevelopment plan.
Planning Board member Brad Lyon cast the lone vote against the application, citing concerns that the proposal had not fully satisfied all requirements before the board, including questions surrounding the project’s school impact analysis. Board member Lou Young abstained.
Mayor Ryan Kennedy and Planning Board member Paul Buda had previously recused themselves from the application and did not participate in the deliberations or vote.
The approval marks a significant milestone for the controversial redevelopment proposal, which would transform the former commercial and industrial property along Hamilton Avenue into a 120-unit apartment community that includes 24 affordable housing units.
Limits of the Planning Board’s Authority
Throughout the evening, board members wrestled with concerns that had dominated months of public hearings, including traffic, parking, stormwater management, flooding, environmental impacts and school enrollment.
But board attorney Christopher DeGrezia repeatedly reminded members that their role was not to reconsider the size or density of the project, which had already been established through the borough’s redevelopment plan and redevelopment agreement.
“We can only decide based upon whether they have complied with the ordinance,” DeGrezia said during deliberations. The board could not deny the application based on concerns over future school enrollment or other policy questions that had already been addressed through the redevelopment process.
Planning Board member Marylou Ferrara said many residents entered the process believing the board had greater authority to reshape the project than it ultimately possessed.
“I think this whole process should have had a better education and explanation to the public during when this ordinance first came about,” Ferrara said. “Suggestions that members of the public would have power to demand changes to the application or even that we would during our planning board hearings was unhelpful.”
Ferrara noted that while the applicant voluntarily agreed to make several changes in response to public feedback, those modifications were not changes the board could require simply because residents opposed aspects of the proposal. She ultimately voted in favor of approval.
One Board Member Dissents
Lyon, however, remained unconvinced that the application had fully met all requirements.
During deliberations, she questioned whether materials submitted by the applicant adequately satisfied provisions requiring a school impact study and argued that the application remained incomplete.
“I don’t think the application is complete,” Lyon said.
Board professionals responded that information regarding projected student impacts had been submitted and that school enrollment considerations were not a factor the Planning Board could use to alter the project’s approved density.
Lyon ultimately voted against the application.
Conditions Added to Approval
The board attached a lengthy list of conditions to the approval, many reflecting issues raised repeatedly by residents throughout the hearings.
Among them were requirements for compliance with recommendations contained in the Planning Board engineer’s May 20 review memorandum, additional pedestrian safety measures, tree inventories and replacement requirements, construction safety protocols, affordable housing compliance provisions, fire-flow and hydrant-capacity reviews, restrictions on future rooftop activity and other site-plan modifications discussed during deliberations.
The board also recommended replacing a proposed mini-roundabout with a four-way stop configuration, though that decision ultimately rests with borough officials.
Opposition Remains
The vote does not end opposition to the project.
Throughout the hearings, residents raised concerns about traffic, flooding, parking, environmental impacts, school enrollment and the overall scale of the development. Much of that opposition coalesced around the Hopewell Community Alliance, which retained outside experts to review the project’s engineering and environmental submissions.
In the weeks leading up to the vote, the organization argued that residents had not been given sufficient opportunity to review important engineering materials submitted during the application process. In a June 1 letter to the board attorney, the group pointed to a May 20 memorandum from Planning Board engineer Candice Davis identifying 25 deficiencies and questioned why supporting documents submitted by the applicant in early April were not more prominently disclosed before the close of public testimony.
The group had urged the board to reopen public testimony to allow additional questioning of borough professionals and further review of technical documents.
The alliance also cited a May 1 letter from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection requesting additional information related to flood storage calculations, stormwater management, riparian zone mapping and remediation matters associated with the site.
What Comes Next
Although the Planning Board’s vote clears a major local hurdle, the project must still obtain additional outside approvals before construction can begin.
Those include ongoing reviews by state and county agencies, including the NJDEP permitting process.
For supporters, the approval moves Hopewell Borough closer to adding both affordable and market-rate housing while redeveloping a long-vacant property.
For opponents, questions remain about whether the project’s impacts have been fully understood and whether residents were given sufficient opportunity to scrutinize information that emerged late in the review process.
After months of hearings and debate, however, the Planning Board’s role in the process has now largely come to an end.
