The U-Haul project was notable not only for its scale but also for the variances required and the complexities involved due to environmental constraints and the property’s unique features. The discussion covered the receipt of an NJ DOT permit, architectural considerations, and the project’s potential impact on traffic, including rentals at a nearby gas station. Board members scrutinized the proposed building, vehicular circulation, and operational aspects, which included the management of a billboard on the property and the usage of the existing building for customer service.

Moreover, the board discussed at length the proposed setback and driveway width, leading to a debate on the rationale behind the requested variances. Concerns were also raised about the original approval’s restrictions on pot containers outside the building and potential circulation issues. The relationship between the new facility and the existing U-Haul business was another focal point, with the board seeking clarification on this matter.

The meeting delved into technical details and deliberations on various aspects of the proposed U-Haul project. Board members engaged in discussions, seeking further information to inform their decision-making process. After extensive deliberation, the board ultimately approved the application, with conditions focusing on technical comments, fire code compliance, and landscaping corrections on the original site at the time of planting. The board members’ approval was influenced by the consolidation of similar businesses along Route 9, recognizing the suitability of the site for the proposed uses given its size and configuration, and the low impact of the self-storage facility on traffic.

Another major topic was the application of Inity Plaza LLC, which sought a conditional use variance and minor site plan with bulk variances for constructing a 4,500-square-foot warehouse expansion. The applicant’s engineer presented the site plan, addressing the addition of a storage building, stormwater management measures, site circulation, compliance with EV statute, landscaping enhancements, and parking. There was a specific focus on the storage of heavy equipment on asphalt pavement, with the board historically preferring storage on concrete due to its durability against leaks. The proposed warehouse was intended to store wooden projects vulnerable to mold and rot, highlighting the necessity of the expansion.

The board also heard testimony from a licensed professional planner, Christine Kone, who detailed the variance relief required for a trade contractor use application in the S1 Zone. Kone affirmed that although the application was substantially conforming, it violated two conditions: office space restriction and the requirement for a Farmland buffer. The ensuing discussion covered the application’s benefits, the planning betterments associated with it, and concerns raised during public comments about the accessibility and visual impact of the site.

The board navigated the challenges of outdoor vehicle storage without a clear inventory and the need for a sidewalk on Route 9. They also tackled refuge management, with the existing refuge enclosure being sufficient, and lighting requirements, where the applicant’s proposed downward-facing LED lights exceeded the specified limit.

Furthermore, stormwater management was a point of discussion, with the proposed infiltration basin at the back of the property necessitating a wall and fence exceeding the height allowance. The type and placement of the fence, the aesthetics and practicality of utility structure placement, and the Woodlands management plan were also debated.