The primary agenda item was a detailed presentation about Avalon Bay Phase 2, which is part of an ongoing urban renewal effort. The development plans to integrate 171 residential units into the community, along with a dedicated parking garage providing 705 spaces, exceeding zoning requirements. However, despite the surplus, residents and board members raised concerns about the adequacy and management of parking, particularly the impact on street parking availability. The planning for parking was noted to consider existing demand and supply ratios, but questions persisted about how effectively these plans would accommodate the community’s needs.

Public comments highlighted significant dissatisfaction among residents, with one individual specifically pointing out illegal parking by Avalon residents on public streets. The resident provided photographic evidence and questioned the development’s capacity to manage its traffic and parking needs responsibly. Concerns about street parking were echoed by others, including a suggestion for a residential sticker program to better manage street parking and prevent overflow from the new development.

The board also delved into the design details of the proposed building, which will feature amenities such as a rooftop deck and shared spaces. The design includes safety features like fire-rated partitions and compliance with fire department specifications. However, the placement of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations within the parking deck sparked debate over safety protocols, with the board insisting on robust fire suppression measures due to the high risks associated with EV fires.

Community members expressed unease about the elimination of on-street parking spaces due to the new construction, a particular concern for townhouse residents who rely on street parking. The board acknowledged these challenges, noting the difficulty of balancing development needs with community impact. Discussions revealed that the planning board is aware of ongoing parking issues and is considering strategies to mitigate these concerns once the borough assumes control of the newly constructed roads.

Traffic management was another topic, with experts presenting a traffic impact study designed to accommodate the anticipated increase in residential traffic. The study suggested that the opening of Station Road could alleviate some congestion, rerouting approximately 15% of current traffic to improve flow. However, residents remained skeptical about the proposed solutions, emphasizing persistent issues with pedestrian safety and road congestion.

The meeting also touched on landscaping and environmental considerations, with a plans featuring native and adaptive plant materials aimed at enhancing the building’s aesthetic and environmental footprint. Residents queried the maintenance of these green spaces and their alignment with utility installations.

Concerns over affordable housing provisions were raised, with inquiries about the project’s contribution to the community’s affordable housing trust fund and the distribution of affordable units within the development. The board clarified that community-focused initiatives were prioritized over mandated requirements, with the development being a collaborative effort to revitalize a previously contaminated area.