Council withdraws vote on major Constitution Avenue redevelopment after residents and planners press for more review

The Bayonne Municipal Council on June 17 withdrew a final-adoption vote on Ordinance 01, a redevelopment plan for properties identified at 300–302/301 Constitution Avenue, after an extended public hearing highlighted questions about planning-board review, traffic impacts, utility capacity and affordable-housing obligations.

The ordinance had been introduced in January and scheduled for second reading. During the hearing, residents and planning-board members — including Michael O'Connor, Damian Bavona and Maria Velado — said the planning board had not held a public hearing and that the boards quorum had lapsed for several months. Commenters pressed the council to defer action, arguing the public had not had an adequate opportunity to weigh in on a proposal repeatedly characterized in public remarks as allowing very tall buildings and large new unit counts.

Director of Planning and Zoning told the council the redevelopment plan text includes a master-plan consistency discussion and that, under the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, "the failure of the planning board to transmit its report within 45 days of adoption relieves the city council of its requirement to receive that report." Redevelopment counsel William Opal and redeveloper counsel Michael Miselli both told the council the council could legally act after the planning board's inaction; Miselli said the plan would produce community-benefit payments and contain a 5% workforce-housing set-aside in the redevelopment agreement.

But technical witnesses and consulting professionals raised outstanding questions. Utility counsel and engineering representatives said they had not confirmed whether existing water and sewer lines could accommodate up to 1,500–1,700 potential units discussed in the draft plan. Planning-board members and the citys planning staff said they had not all received or reviewed the traffic study and asked for highway-access permitting and sewer/water-capacity checks before a final vote.

Following the public-comment period and an extended internal discussion, the council president moved to withdraw the ordinance for final passage so it may be further vetted and returned later. The motion was seconded and carried; the council did not adopt the redevelopment plan that evening.

Redeveloper representatives said the project would include significant community contributions and that the project is intended as a long-term, mixed-use redevelopment consistent with the city's master-plan guidance. Residents who spoke called for transparency, more planning-board engagement and clearer commitments on traffic mitigation, water/sewer capacity and preservation of existing affordable units.

Next steps identified in the hearing include additional review by planning professionals, clarification of traffic and utility studies and further public engagement before any ordinance is resubmitted for final action.