The most contentious part of the meeting involved a proposed development by 335 Green Street LLC, seeking a bifurcated D variance to allow for 76 townhomes in an area currently zoned for lower density. The development’s location, characterized by limited frontage and environmental sensitivities like wetlands, added complexity to the discussion. The applicant’s attorney emphasized the project’s necessity in meeting the township’s affordable housing obligations, arguing that the proposed density aligns with nearby developments. However, the density far exceeds the current zoning allowance of 3.0 homes per acre, raising concerns about the feasibility and appropriateness of the project.

Residents voiced strong opposition, particularly regarding the estimated increase in traffic and the impact on local infrastructure. Concerns were articulated about Green Street, which residents described as narrow and ill-equipped to handle the expected rise in vehicle numbers. One resident, Daniel, argued that the development would drastically change the quiet character of the neighborhood, noting that the street resembles more of a driveway than a main road, with limited capacity for increased traffic. He estimated the traffic increase might be closer to 90% or 100% rather than the 10% projected by the applicant.

Traffic and safety concerns were further highlighted by the critical comments regarding emergency service access and the adequacy of proposed road designs. The board addressed these worries by discussing the width of the entrance and exit roads and the potential need for a mountable landscape island to facilitate fire apparatus access. The absence of fire hydrants in initial plans was also noted, with assurances given that they would be included.

Environmental concerns featured prominently in the discussions, with residents worried about potential pollution risks to nearby water systems and the displacement of local wildlife. A representative from the engineering firm involved confirmed compliance with New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulations, emphasizing that the project would not encroach on environmentally sensitive areas. Nonetheless, local skepticism remained high, with calls for further environmental impact assessments to ensure the protection of local ecosystems.

Residents expressed fears that the project would set a precedent for further high-density developments in an area traditionally characterized by single-family homes. The potential strain on local resources, including schools and emergency services, was a recurrent theme throughout the public comments.

Community members like Anna Shera, who moved to the area seeking a family-friendly environment, shared their apprehensions about pedestrian safety and the potential for increased crime. She noted that the current infrastructure, which lacks sidewalks, would present heightened risks for those commuting on foot, especially during darker months. The dialogue also touched on the challenges of blending affordable housing into the community without concentrating units in isolated sections, which could contradict principles of inclusive development.

The board concluded the meeting by acknowledging the need for further discussions and scheduled the continuation of deliberations for April 3rd. Public input was encouraged, with the board emphasizing the importance of community feedback in shaping the final decision.