One notable issue revolved around stormwater management, as the proposed development, consisting of two parcels totaling 9.7 acres, is situated in an area with a history of stormwater runoff problems. The applicant’s engineer, Selen Joy, presented plans to mitigate current conditions by raising a cul-de-sac to direct stormwater into bio-retention basins, thereby achieving an 88% reduction in runoff for a 10-year storm event. This exceeds the regulatory requirement of 25%. Despite these efforts, concerns lingered among board members and residents about future impervious coverage, as additional structures such as fences or pools could alter the stormwater dynamics.

The proposal includes a 50-foot buffer with hardwood and evergreen trees to separate the development from adjacent properties. However, the need for grading within this buffer to facilitate proper drainage sparked debate. The board deliberated the necessity of adhering to existing ordinances prohibiting such grading, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a pristine buffer zone. An insistence on compliance with these regulations led to suggestions that fewer lots might need to be accommodated if the buffer could not be disturbed.

Public comments further highlighted the community’s concerns, notably from residents apprehensive about potential water pooling and drainage issues exacerbated by the new development. Some residents recounted past flooding incidents. The board acknowledged these concerns and committed to ensuring that the development’s impact on neighboring properties would be thoroughly assessed, particularly regarding water drainage.

Traffic considerations also featured prominently in the meeting, given the development’s planned entrance alignment with the busy Wawa convenience store. The traffic engineer explained that the alignment was chosen to improve safety and minimize conflicts in turning movements. The development is expected to generate approximately 20 peak hour trips, which, according to the engineer, is a reduction from the site’s previous use. Residents expressed unease about existing traffic congestion and safety, especially during peak hours, and questioned whether weekend traffic had been adequately considered.

Further complicating the traffic discourse, a board member suggested realigning the development’s entrance to correspond with a nearby bank driveway rather than the Wawa entrance. This suggestion was countered by the engineers, who maintained that the current alignment was optimal for traffic flow. Additionally, the possibility of implementing a four-way stop at a nearby intersection was discussed, though it was noted that any changes would require coordination with Mammoth County authorities.

The architectural aspects of the project were also scrutinized. The architect presented two housing models with three distinct styles each. The board discussed a proposed monument sign at the entrance, which exceeds the permitted size and requires a variance. While some members questioned its necessity, given modern GPS tools, the architect argued for its utility in wayfinding and neighborhood identity.

The broader context included updates on affordable housing mediation efforts, with amendments to the township’s housing plan anticipated in the first quarter of the following year. The board emphasized the necessity of completing this process by December 31st, without the possibility of extensions.