City Council gave its approval Wednesday to rezone property off of Pruden Boulevard that would allow for a 414-unit development.

The 6-2 vote in favor of the rezoning — Vice Mayor Leroy Bennett and Councilman Tim Johnson voted against it — came after the Planning Commission and the city’s staff report did not favor the rezoning, which affects 48 of the property’s 57 acres at 2575 and 2665 Pruden Blvd. near Murphys Mill Road. The approved rezoning will change the property’s zoning from general commercial to residential urban.

Of the 414 units proffered by the developer, John Napolitano of Napolitano Ventures LLC, there would be 312 apartments and 102 four-plexes, or condominiums. Of the 312 apartments, 100 of those would be one-bedroom, with the remainder two bedrooms or more.

The commission’s vote came May 21 following the proffers that were submitted 11 days earlier.

Council, after the developer had submitted revised proffers, voted 5-3 at its June 19 meeting to table the rezoning request until Jan. 15, 2020.

Developers for the project then submitted another revised proffer Aug. 9, and council approved on Aug. 21 a motion to rescind its June 19 motion. The developer then submitted its latest proffer statement Aug. 26.

Even after the developer of the property adjusted its proffers, the city staff report still recommended that the council deny the rezoning, citing the overcapacity at Elephant’s Fork Elementary School.

The amended proffers for the proposed Hallstead Reserve development including making a minimum of 51 units restricted to those ages 55 and up, and it said would pay out $26,563.67 for the additional 84 elementary students that the staff report states will be generated by the proposed development. The original proffer for student generation had been $20,000 per elementary school student, while the city staff report called for a $33,125 per-student proffer. The school’s existing capacity is 498 students, according to the staff report, and with committed development, it would be 225 students overcapacity.

Johnson, who represents the Holy Neck Borough where this project would be located, said the revised proffers made Hallstead Reserve a much more attractive development, but he still opposed the rezoning on two grounds — that the property would be better suited for commercial development, and that there is overcrowding at Elephant’s Fork.

“My concern is still with taking a wonderful piece of commercial development that we have in this city and turning into a housing complex,” Johnson said. “I’m not convinced, I’m sorry, that this site — and it’s my borough — is going to make a better housing complex than it will a commercial development. … I’m of the opinion that this development came about too soon, (and) schools aren’t ready for it.”

Bennett said he preferred to wait until City Manager Patrick Roberts and the Suffolk Public Schools division come back with a report that would provide a school facilities needs assessment, review school attendance zones and examine student generation rates. He said that would then give council the knowledge of the capacity levels in schools that would accommodate new development. That report is not expected to be ready before spring 2020.

“I don’t feel like we should continue to override the schools and not have a plan for it,” Bennett said.

Councilman Mike Duman said the developer made concessions to reduce student generation by 20 percent and limit the rate at which the non-age restricted condo units would receive an occupancy permit to no more than 20 per year. As part of the revised proffer, the developer would be required to set up a condominium association for the 102 such units.

Councilman Roger Fawcett said he doesn’t believe the Hallstead Reserve development would generate as many students as projected in the staff report, and that the development would still take several years to fully come to fruition. He also said the developer had made numerous adjustments to the proffers to make the project a better one, and that the city would miss an opportunity if it didn’t happen.

“As far as this being commercial, there has been no, no interest in commercial for this particular tract,” Fawcett said. “And I don’t, talking to a lot of developers, see anybody putting out there to build any commercial. However, with this residential community, it could spark and generate this area for a lot of things.

“So I don’t think it’s fair — the developer has made a very significant amendment to his request, and I think, looking at that, we can’t go woulda, coulda, shoulda. We’ve got to look at what’s in front of us today.”