Residents fault Board of Adjustment hearing procedures, say public felt intimidated

Residents attending the Lambertville City Council meeting pressed elected officials on perceived problems at a recent Board of Adjustment hearing, saying professional staff and outside experts undermined the publics ability to participate and may have presented inaccurate legal or technical information.

"This is not a Judy Gleason issue. This is a compliance and enforcement issue in town," said Judy Gleason, a resident of North Union Street, laying out a year-long concern about zoning and construction permits near the school playground. Gleason told the council she had sent a letter documenting the history and said she was offered a meeting with construction officials but wants consistent enforcement citywide.

Jeff T, another resident who testified about the Board of Adjustment hearing, praised volunteer board members but sharply criticized the towns professionals. "The three professionals that represented the town not only did not do their job, but it seemed as if they ignored pertinent facts and never gave pertinent information to the board," he said, adding that one attorneys remark that a proposed hotel would never come before the board was misleading and that the planners characterization of a private restoration as a "public good" misstated the law.

Witnesses at the hearing also said an engineer who had written about traffic concerns did not read his letter aloud during testimony and that several expert witnesses were allowed extended presentation time while members of the public were limited to three minutes. Some residents said being sworn in to speak felt intimidating and may have discouraged public participation.

Council members responded that the points raised were substantial and asked residents to send written notes outlining specific concerns. The council said it would compile those materials and discuss them with the professionals who attend Board of Adjustment and planning board meetings, and that board chairs could be asked to clarify meeting formats and expectations.

Several council members suggested steps to improve transparency and public engagement, including clearer explanations at meetings of the legal standard for a use variance, better pre-meeting guidance from board chairs, and exploring whether planning and zoning hearings should be recorded or made viewable so the public can follow testimony without testifying remotely.

The council did not take formal action at the meeting but asked staff to gather comments and follow up with professionals and board chairs. Residents called for an annual review or survey of board procedures and for stronger, consistent enforcement of zoning and construction rules.

The council asked that submitted concerns be compiled and returned to the body with recommendations for potential procedural changes.