Residents press council for clearer public updates on HOCO‑57 redevelopment

Council member James asked for a full, publicly accessible list of outside agencies and outstanding items for the HOCO‑57 redevelopment and suggested the borough post current statuses so residents can track approvals and remaining steps.

"Can you provide the current status of HOCO 57 application? It's before Mercer County Planning Board," James asked, and later urged the borough to identify what remains outstanding so the public can better follow the process.

The borough’s planning‑board attorney (speaker 12) responded that determining whether design changes are "de minimis" or substantive is an engineering/planning function, and that many of the required approvals are public records on county or state sites. He added the county planning board has limited jurisdiction and that compliance review is typically carried out by the municipal engineer and planner.

A resident and later a remote commenter, Andrew Osborne, cited a clause in the redevelopment agreement that requires the redeveloper to reply to written status requests; Deborah (speaker 5) said the developer’s agreement and a communication plan are imminent and that the borough will post materials once finalized. No new formal council action or vote changed the redevelopment approvals at the meeting.