One notable matter addressed by the board was the township’s plan to subdivide block 1132 lot 2.03 on Highland Avenue into ten smaller lots. The proposal, presented by engineer Frank Farrell, sought to transform the existing 1.75-acre lot into eight conforming lots fronting Highland Avenue and two lots fronting Park Avenue. However, one of the Park Avenue lots, proposed as lot 2.13, would be only 40 feet wide, less than the 75-foot width required by zoning regulations. This prompted a thorough discussion among board members about the potential challenges and implications of creating a non-conforming lot.

Board members expressed concerns that the narrow lot could impede future development and questioned whether purchasing adjacent properties might resolve the non-conformity. The consensus was that any buyer of the non-conforming lot would still need to seek variance relief for width and area if they wished to build on it. Despite these concerns, the board, after addressing various inquiries, voted unanimously to approve the subdivision, acknowledging that it would eliminate existing through-lot conditions, albeit while introducing a new non-conforming element.

Following the approval of the Highland Avenue subdivision, attention shifted to the application by GTJ, a property management company, concerning a warehouse situated on Corporate Place. GTJ sought preliminary and final site plan approval to continue using the site as a warehouse while reducing its overall size by eliminating office space. The application included plans to construct additional truck loading spaces and parking, as well as install electric vehicle charging stations, aligning with environmental sustainability efforts.

The board’s deliberations were complicated by ongoing issues with the current tenant, whose lease expired in May but remains on site. The tenant reportedly plans to vacate by January 2025, yet formal confirmation is pending. GTJ’s request included four variances, notably for the minimum rear yard setback and a significant reduction in required parking spaces. The proposed parking plan would provide only 29 spaces compared to the 286 required, a variance that drew particular attention from the board.

Concerns about site maintenance, including debris and unkempt conditions attributed to the tenant, were voiced by board members. Despite some attempts by the tenant to clean up the area, the site reportedly remains in a state of disarray. These conditions raised safety concerns, particularly regarding emergency access, and prompted the board to consider deferring a decision on the application.

During the meeting, Miss Marquez, a representative from GTJ, confirmed that the company is pursuing warehouse tenants, though the possibility of future fulfillment center operations was not ruled out. Engineer Michael Marinelli detailed the proposed site modifications, which include removing office space to make room for additional loading areas, while the overall parking plan faced scrutiny over its adequacy for potential future tenants, especially if the site is used as a distribution center.

The board ultimately decided to carry the application to a future meeting, allowing GTJ time to confirm the tenant’s departure and improve site conditions. This decision was bolstered by the applicant’s willingness to address the board’s concerns and commitment to ensuring compliance with township standards. The board acknowledged the necessity for cleanup and compliance, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the property to meet community and safety expectations.