In the face of loud opposition from community groups, union leaders, business owners and local residents, the members of Community Board 7 voted to conditionally approve a developer’s plans to turn the long-vacant Kingsbridge Armory into a giant shopping mall.

After the vote, which came during a tension-filled public meeting at the Bronx Library Center, just blocks from the Armory, Board 7 Chairman Greg Faulkner realized the approval wouldn’t go over well, but said the board acted with the best of intentions.

“Saying no would have been popular and it probably would have felt good,” Faulkner said, “but we felt voting yes with conditions gave us the best shot to have a say in the process going forward.”

The approval came with a list of 11 conditions, including the signing of a Community Benefits Agreement (CBA), the inclusion of a peace atrium, subsidized community space, affordable youth recreation space, and union protections. On the morning of the vote, the developer, The Related Companies, sent a letter to the board saying it agreed, in broad terms, to all the conditions the board set.

Jesse Masyr, Related’s lawyer and community liaison, said the board’s decision was wise. “If you say no, you’re done,” he said. “No means no. Yes with conditions means you’re not there yet, but let’s work together to get there.”

The approval vote also included language encouraging Related to put a supermarket with organic food options into the Armory.

The Bronx-based supermarket chain Morton Williams has lobbied heavily against the inclusion of a supermarket at the Armory, saying it would force them to close both of its stores in the borough at the cost of at least 125 Bronx jobs.

Following the board’s vote to include supermarket language, which came with several dissenting opinions, more than 50 Morton Williams executives and employees in attendance angrily stormed out of the library. “Shame on you,” yelled Morton Williams vice president and part-owner, Avi Kaner. Others shouted that the board was now responsible for the loss of hundreds of good jobs.

The conditions, however, did not include any language requiring the developer to provide living wage jobs ($10 an hour, plus benefits) at the Armory. Related says the renovation will be built using union labor, which will pay at least living wage, but that requiring tenant businesses at the Armory mall to pay living wages was unrealistic.

For the past year, the Kingsbridge Armory Redevelopment Alliance (KARA), which consists of community groups, churches, unions and local residents, has pushed for the inclusion of living wage language in a benefits agreement. At the meeting, several KARA members implored the board to vote no on the project because it didn’t include living wage.

Before the final vote, board member Andrew Laiosa made a push to include living wage requirements as a condition for approval, but Faulkner and a representative from the Bronx borough president’s office told them to drop it because the issue would be taken up in separate negotiations with Related.

“I brought [living wage] up at the end and nobody wanted to touch it,” said Laiosa, who was one of five board members who voted against the mall project. During the confusing argument over living wage language, police escorted out nearly two dozen youth activists for speaking out of order.

Right before the vote, Council Member Oliver Koppell strongly urged board members to vote yes with conditions, saying a no vote would leave the board out of the negotiating process going forward. At the same time, he warned that a no vote could stop the project and leave the Armory vacant.

Assemblyman Jose Rivera disagreed. In a long, rambling speech, he encouraged board members to vote no. Voting no, he said, would send a message to City Hall that big developers like Related would have to work more closely with the community.

“We want development, but we want them to develop with us,” Rivera said.

At the end of the laborious, three-hour meeting, board members practically staggered off the stage in the library’s basement auditorium. Because most of the audience had either left in protest or been escorted out, only the board, a few stragglers, and several representatives from Related and the city remained for the final vote.

Cynthia O’Neal-Riley, who voted against the project and brought up an amendment to block the inclusion of a supermarket, was surprised by all the arguing. “I didn’t know I was opening up a can of worms,” she said. “I just wanted to protect the jobs of those workers.”

“I’m completely worn out,” said board member Helene Hartman, who also voted against the project. She said she couldn’t bring herself to vote for the project because “we really didn’t have enough of an agreement from Related.”

Laiosa agreed. “It’s a matter of details,” he said. “There’s no requirement for [Related] to do anything. They can turn it anything they want.”

But the bulk of the board agreed with Faulkner and Koppell that voting yes with conditions was the best move to stay in the picture and keep the development moving forward.

Board member Enrique Vega, who lives just down the street from the Armory, was not swayed by the audience’s stance against the project. “I wasn’t real impressed with the audience, they were very rehearsed,” he said. “They had an agenda.”

George Berdejo, another board member, said, “We’ve looked at all sides of the issue and I think we’re making the right decision for everybody involved.” He added that it was good that not everybody on the board agreed. “That’s a good thing. It shows there’s no collusion.”