The River Walk Village LLC’s attorney presented a proposal to cap office space at 5,725 square feet. The proposal aimed to provide the applicant with the flexibility needed to adapt to evolving retail and office space leasing trends. This change would deviate from the current conditional use standards, potentially transforming the tenant makeup of the property. The board engaged in a thorough discussion with the applicant’s representatives, evaluating the alignment of the proposed change with the township’s master plan.

A significant aspect of the application was related to the signage for the River Walk Village. The attorney highlighted the differences in signage regulations between River Walk Village and another property owned by the applicant, Marketplace. The proposed signage changes involved variances for dimensions, mounting height, and illumination. This led to a comprehensive debate about the aesthetics, visibility, and impact of the new signage on both the property and the surrounding community. Questions were raised about the scale and placement of the proposed signage, with the board seeking clarification on how the signage would integrate with the existing architecture.

The discussion also addressed the negative criteria, with the applicant’s representative stating that the proposed change would not substantially impair the master plan. It was argued that the use adjustment might actually enhance foot traffic to the site. The board considered the variance relief sought, especially the Cry Square standard related to a D3 variance, and the self-imposed office cap’s consistency with the master plan. Parking considerations were a key point of contention, as the board debated whether the inclusion of office space on the first floor would change parking volume, leading to discussions about the need for a parking study.

Another case that captured attention was Don V LLC’s application for a bulk variance on Stonehouse Road. The applicant intended to construct an addition to an existing home and increase the height of the second floor to comply with current code requirements. Attorney John Sullivan and architect Steve Duer detailed the existing structure’s limitations, including undersized bedrooms and a second-floor ceiling height of only 5’10”. The board reviewed the proposed floor plan and elevations, focusing on the technical aspects of the construction, and engaged in a specific dialogue about the proposed alterations.

The meeting also discussed a renovation project that proposed changes to a residential property. This included adding a covered front porch, a new bedroom with a private bathroom, a modified kitchen, a new powder room, and a 10×10 deck at the rear of the house. The applicant’s architect presented the building elevations and discussed the materials to be used. The property’s impervious coverage was a topic of debate, with the engineer presenting revised calculations showing a reduction from 23.12% to 19.69%. The board also considered the Environmental Commission’s concerns about stormwater best management practices and the lot yield table, with the engineer agreeing to submit a revised plan incorporating the necessary corrections.

Further discussions included a request for four bulk variances related to a property on Mono Place, where the applicant detailed the stipulations for dedicating the right of way to the county and installing a dry well for stormwater management. In a related conversation, the board deliberated on a proposal for a swimming pool, which would increase impervious coverage, and discussed potential solutions for stormwater management, such as installing infiltration systems and planting willow trees.