One of the central points of contention during the meeting was the density of the proposed development and its potential impact on neighborhood traffic and safety. Concerns were raised about the adequacy of the road width and whether the increased density would hinder navigation and exacerbate traffic congestion, especially with the anticipated influx of delivery and landscaping trucks. Some residents compared the proposed density unfavorably with typical single-family neighborhoods in the area, expressing worries that the development would disrupt the character and flow of the community.

The applicant’s representative outlined modifications to the project, which included a reduction in the number of units and changes to the access roadway, circulation, and building spacing. The revised plans also proposed a loop cul-de-sac to improve access circulation and a widened roadway with battered curbing. Design considerations were made to enhance tree buffering at the perimeter and to retain existing trees, thereby exceeding the tree replacement requirements.

Adjustmentsttention was given to the landscape plan for the new development, which involves hundreds of shrubs and adheres to the township’s guidelines against planting invasive species. Additionally, the delivery of a plan revision was also a key discussion point. The representative presented documents such as a summary of plan revisions, a revised site plan, a revised stormwater management report, and correspondence to the fire chief regarding fire truck access plans. These documents aimed to address deviations from residential site improvement standards and compliance with parking space size and tree replacement requirements.

Water management was also a topic of discussion, with the updated development plans reducing the number of detention basins from three to two and adding an underground infiltration system to address water quantity and quality issues. The Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA) raised concerns about the positioning of hydrants, noting that a private hydrant on fire department property would necessitate a specific process.

The meeting also touched on the logistics of the proposed development, such as the creation of a pulloff area for deliveries and individual containers for garbage pickup at each home. Further, the installation of a sidewalk in front of the property was debated, with opinions divided on the need for a sidewalk and the potential requirement for a waiver or in-lieu payment into a fund. Questions arose about public access to sidewalk areas, dedicated play areas for children, and the safety of sidewalks intersecting with driveways and visitor parking.

A representative from Dynamic Traffic provided an overview of the traffic impact and parking assessment report, which concluded that the proposed 13 homes would not increase traffic. However, residents and some council members challenged the assessment, voicing skepticism about the claim that the additional trips would have minimal impact on local roads like Armstrong Road.

The council also deliberated on the necessity of a sidewalk for the development, weighing the potential benefits for pedestrian access against the costs and impact on the landscape. While some council members questioned the need for a sidewalk given the lack of existing networks in the area, others considered the sidewalk essential.

In addition to the discussions about the proposed development, the council addressed various administrative matters, including the scheduling of a continued hearing for the application. The board considered the availability of members for a potential special meeting and discussed the possibility of requiring professional planner reports to be submitted in advance of hearings to ensure better preparedness and informed decision-making.