The most prominent topic was the application by Countryside Properties LLP for a preliminary and final site plan with a D variance for three proposed multifamily residential buildings, including senior housing with both market-rate and affordable units. The development, designed to accommodate seniors, proposed 24 units with four earmarked as affordable housing, a move towards fulfilling the township’s affordable housing requirements. The board scrutinized various aspects of the plan, such as stormwater management, water capacity, and setback variances.

The discussion on the senior housing project extended to the establishment of a homeowners association, infrastructure for electric vehicles, and the landscaping plan. The board also focused on accessibility, with potential future developments in mind, and addressed reports from the Fire Marshall and County, discussing their satisfaction with the application. Points of contention included the placement of mailboxes and benches, private trash pickup versus a trash enclosure, and the requirement for sidewalks within the development.

A traffic engineering expert provided a report comparing the traffic impact of the proposed senior housing to that of a previously approved office space. The expert concluded that the proposed development would generate less traffic. The board also debated the management of the facility, enforcement of age criteria for tenants, parking concerns, and the visual impact of an on-site water tank intended for firefighting purposes.

Another application discussed was for a proposed contractor’s yard and minor subdivision on Everett Road. The applicant’s attorney and experts presented testimony on various concerns, including the suitability of the site for the proposed use, given its historical use as a concrete plant and its proximity to a major interstate highway. The board inquired about traffic demand, potential occupants, and the impact on sewage and flooding. The applicant assured that the development would not increase flooding risks and addressed the removal of existing concrete structures, promising environmental restoration and compliance with soil conservation standards.

The board also discussed the need for screen buffers and the restoration of previously installed buffer plantings. A landscape architect and professional planner justified the variances sought, emphasizing the site’s suitability due to its historical use and location. The expert witnesses and board members engaged in a review of the project, with the board seeking clarification on the traffic impact, potential tenants, and site conditions.

In a move towards adaptive reuse and environmental restoration, the board voted in favor of the application for the contractor’s yard, contingent on conditions such as the requirement for all vehicles on the site to be registered and operational.

In one such case, applicants Vicki and Robert Morris withdrew their request for a time extension on their property after a debate on whether the new owners should apply for a new variance.