A crowded room of residents at the Aug. 1 meeting of Bath Borough Council prompted President Mark Saginario to quip at the start of the meeting, “This is the first time we ever had to add chairs for a council meeting.”

The meeting began with a public hearing for residents’ input on the proposed mixed-use ordinance, which was up for a vote that night.

The ordinance was to establish a schedule of permitted use, dimensional requirements for mixed use, accessory uses and special-exception uses in the parking overlay district. The area includes 71 properties.

Simply stated, the mixed-use designation sets up two uses of buildings: a business on the first floor with residential use on the second floor or nonresidential use on the first and second floors. The owner could have two apartments. The ordinance would allow a fast track for businesses to set up operations. Mixed use is an urban type of zoning that blends residential, cultural and commercial integration. A benefit is said to be development of a stronger neighborhood character.

One after another, business operators spoke in favor of the mixed-use ordinance, calling it good for business and good for community development. It was pointed out there is opportunity to develop the Bath historical district that will attract people to the borough to visit specialty shops.

One business operator remarked, “Let’s try to grow the borough. Be positive.”

Another said, “It would be great to have people come to Bath and spend money right here.”

All seemed in place for a swift affirmative vote. Then, three residents, individually, addressed parking issues the downtown area already has. Another property owner who said several times he owns 10 percent of the properties in the district complained there is no parking now. He also made an allegation the ordinance was written to benefit one council member. The allegation was discussed and firmly rebutted.

A back-and-forth debate occurred that pitted business development versus parking issues. It included a discussion about possible solutions: parking permits for residents, parking meters in the district and construction of a parking garage.

No parking decisions were made.

Councilman Mike Reph commented, “There is no place to put cars now.”

Counsel member Carol Bear-Heckman replied, “Mixed-use complements building use. If you have all apartments, you will still have parking issues.” After about an hour of the public hearing, a business owner who passionately supports the mixed-use ordinance suggested a vote delay until some questions were answered.

Saginario said he arrived at the meeting thinking he would vote for the ordinance but was hesitant following the discussion.

“I think council should postpone the vote until September. This community input has given me pause,” he said. “It was a good hearing. I want to think more about the issues raised tonight.”

Council agreed, and the vote was postponed.

During a recess that followed, several residents discussed the happenings of the night and said they planned to attend the September council meeting.

One gentleman added, “This is gonna get interesting.”