The proposed development has prompted a series of variances, including those related to floor area ratio, building height, setback of the building canopy from a residential zone, the number of parking spaces, disturbance of steep slopes, retaining wall height limitation, residential zone setback, access through a residentially zoned lot, and construction within a buffer area. Testimony was provided by a licensed planner, Mr. Hughes, who justified the requested variances by addressing concerns over visual, environmental, traffic, and parking infrastructure impacts. He stressed the transition of the property from an underutilized office space to a use that aligns with current market demands and provided insights into the planning considerations for the development.

One pivotal point of contention was the traffic study conducted for the proposal. Members of the public and board members scrutinized the location and methodology of the traffic study, questioning the accuracy of the data and the potential impact on local roads, especially Allen Road. The debate centered on the use of statistical averages to predict truck trip generation and whether using such averages could lead to underestimating the potential traffic impact, given the significant variation among similar-sized sites. The traffic engineer defended the use of averages as an industry standard, but there was pushback about the potential impact of outliers and the need to consider peak hour traffic movements in more detail.

The discussion also touched upon the parking supply proposed by the project, with the applicant presenting a plan for 328 parking spaces. This number was compared to the standard rule of one parking space per 1,000 or 1,500 square feet. The board considered the adequacy of this parking supply, especially in relation to the variances requested for the number of parking spaces and the disturbance of steep slopes on the property.

Further, there were inquiries about the use of GPS technology for rerouting trucks and the validity of assumptions in traffic engineering analysis. Concerns were also raised about the capacity of traffic lights to handle the anticipated increase in truck traffic, which may include a mix of box trucks and larger vehicles.

During the course of the meeting, there was a robust exchange regarding the need to ensure that the traffic study reflects a realistic scenario for truck trips generated by the facility. The possibility of using the Industrial Park land use code, which might lead to a higher average rate of truck trips, was suggested. Another individual recommended expanding the study area to include additional locations, but the response emphasized adherence to industry standards and the review by the board’s traffic engineer.

The applicant’s attorney argued in favor of the variances, assuring minimal impact on the nearby residential area and compliance with environmental regulations. They also asserted that the proposed redevelopment aligns with the township’s master plan goals. However, the discussions revealed that changes to the variance requests might be forthcoming, prompting the board to adjourn the meeting to reconvene at a later date for further deliberation.