The most significant topic of the meeting was the application for a Jersey Mike’s restaurant on Route 22. The Planning Board’s subcommittee had previously reviewed this application and found no concerns regarding parking at the proposed location. However, during the meeting, board members and professionals expressed concerns about the potential increase in traffic and parking demand. The site plan engineer, Joseph Stiger, testified that the site would not undergo changes, focusing mainly on site cleanup. He stated, “there’s no site changes,” emphasizing that the proposed alterations were minimal.

Despite these reassurances, board members voiced their worries about traffic congestion, especially during peak hours. One member noted, “I pass by this location three to four times a week, I barely have ever seen anyone in the hair establishment,” highlighting the potential for increased congestion with both Jersey Mike’s and the existing 7-Eleven operating simultaneously. The proposed Jersey Mike’s would have limited seating, which might mitigate long-term parking issues. “This only has eight seats,” was noted.

Various cleanup items and site improvements were discussed, including the need to restripe parking spaces and replace stop signs. Concerns regarding the ingress and egress points were also raised, with suggestions to improve visibility and safety for vehicles entering and exiting the site. The discussion included the necessity for signage improvements to enhance safety, particularly due to existing challenges with turning movements.

The board also addressed public comments, although no members of the public expressed concerns about the Jersey Mike’s application. This led to the closure of the public comment period and a shift in focus to the next application.

Another topic was the ongoing discussion about Congregation Israel’s site plan. The application included several amendments based on feedback from a prior meeting. These changes involved eliminating three parking spaces adjacent to neighboring properties, shifting five parking spaces to the rear, decreasing aisle width to create a landscape buffer, and enhancing the overall landscaping. The applicant’s engineer testified about these modifications, emphasizing the reduction in the total number of parking spaces from 57 to 54, which resulted in a slight decrease in impervious surface area.

Board members engaged in a dialogue about whether the remaining parking space, positioned relatively close to the entrance of the synagogue, could be modified for better buffering. Some members expressed a desire for additional buffer space to enhance privacy for residents adjacent to the temple. The discussion included considerations of safety concerning parking space dimensions and the potential implications of narrowing spaces to increase buffer widths. Compact spaces were suggested to provide more buffer area without compromising safety standards.

The board also discussed compliance with parking ratios relative to the size of the structure and seating capacity, confirming that the current proposal still met the necessary requirements despite the reductions in parking spaces. The conversation touched on the relevance of variances in relation to the proposed parking configurations and whether the application needed to accommodate public access for full compliance with zoning requirements.

The installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations also came under scrutiny. Both the Planning Board and the applicant agreed on keeping the stations private to prevent unauthorized access. The applicant noted that the contractor would specify to the manufacturer whether the charging stations would be public or private. The applicant proposed a private-only option to ensure usability.

The board reviewed a new landscape plan, which included increased buffering on both sides through various plantings, replacing some existing landscaping, and enhancing the height of certain plantings. The applicant noted a commitment to enhancing the buffering landscape, adding more trees than were being removed. Discussions also included lighting changes, with a new exhibit presented to the board. The existing light poles exceeded the maximum height set by the ordinance, so the applicant proposed reducing the height of the lights by six feet and installing house shields to direct the light away from residential properties.

The Planning Board discussed the implications of the proposed lighting measures and noted that a post-installation inspection would ensure compliance with established ordinances. The chief of police had reviewed the lighting plan and expressed confidence in the security measures, which included video surveillance and proper lighting designed to minimize glare and enhance safety.