The primary focus of the meeting was the ongoing dispute regarding Fellowship Village’s Landscaping Committee and its compliance with a resolution passed in 2016. The dispute centered on whether Fellowship Village had met specific conditions related to landscaping and the extension of a fence to adequately screen neighboring properties, particularly from Mrs. Pinson’s perspective. The attorney for Fellowship Village provided context for the dispute and cited submissions to the Landscaping Committee and a subsequent letter, the details of which were not disclosed in the transcript segment provided.

The board and the applicant discussed the landscaping requirements, focusing on the buffer plan and the landscape plan. There was particular attention to the trees and their placement, with questions raised about whether the trees shown on the landscape buffer plan had been installed and if the site had more trees than required by the plan. Additionally, there were gaps underneath the fence, and the board inquired if they had been remediated. Despite some board members expressing satisfaction with the remediation efforts, others questioned the resolution of the gaps and the visibility issues raised by Mrs. Pinson.

A specific point of contention was the extension of the fence at the West End of the property. The Landscaping Committee recommended adding an additional 16 feet of fencing, while Mrs. Pinson persisted that the fence had not been extended as agreed upon and presented pictures to support her claim. The board examined these pictures and a survey of Mrs. Pinson’s property, leading to further debate about the distance between the fence and a certain pine tree and the interpretation of the condition requiring the extension.

The board also addressed the issue of dead trees and the proper placement of additional trees not originally required by the plan. During site visits, some board members did not observe dead trees, while others pointed out that certain trees appeared shorter than the required height.

The lack of screening, particularly the visibility from Mrs. Pinson’s house, brought forth suggestions for adding taller trees such as Green Giant arborvitaes. Mrs. Pinson was skeptical about the viability of planting more trees and suggested alternative solutions such as dimming lights or using shades. The board discussed the need for further inspection and the potential addition of more trees and landscaping along the property line.

The Landscaping Committee expressed the need for additional trees to block gaps and provide a buffer for neighboring properties. A site survey was suggested to determine the exact locations for planting. The board also expressed the need for a light study to ensure compliance with approved plans and discussed the potential employment of a consultant to assess the lighting.

Another topic was the discussion on the Bank of America National Association’s preliminary and final site plan application for a new ATM drive-through lane and lighting upgrades. The jurisdiction of the planning board over the application was confirmed, despite a debate over whether the proposed improvements constituted an expansion or intensification of the non-conforming bank use. The board discussed the lighting standards required by state law for ATMs and the exception from the local ordinance regarding average lighting for non-residential areas.

The installation of a new ATM was closely scrutinized, focusing on the lighting requirements tied to the ATM. There was concern about the brightness of a ground-mounted sign and its impact on drivers, and a consensus was reached to revise the lighting to comply with the ordinance. The applicant emphasized the need for significant lighting to meet the state statute’s requirement of 10-foot candles at the face of the ATM, while the board sought to understand the necessity of specific fixtures in relation to the state statute.

Lastly, the issue of light pollution from the bank’s parking lot was addressed, with discussions on the levels of foot candles and the impact of lighting on adjacent properties. There was concern over the intensity of the light and its impact on the surrounding area, and the necessity of additional lighting at the perimeter was questioned. The board requested an existing lighting plan to assess the current illumination levels.

The discussion then moved to administrative matters, such as extending the time to act on the application until August 31 and the pending approval with the Somerset County Planning Board. The placement of a dumpster on the site and the required buffering and screening were also addressed.