The approval of the affordable housing project on Minebrook Road was a focal point of the meeting, as the board reviewed updates to the amended preliminary and final site plan application. The adjustments were aimed at accommodating a 10-foot easement along the property line, adding an additional parking space, and incorporating fire safety recommendations. Nicole Mancini, representing the applicant, and engineer Kevin Shelly provided updates and concept plans to the board. Shelly presented a layout that demonstrated trail access and addressed the fire chief’s recommendations, including fire ratings, sprinkler systems, and electric vehicle parking provisions. The board and the applicant’s representatives engaged in a comprehensive dialogue to ensure the development complied with the updated requirements.

The board also discussed the design and functionality of the retaining wall and site sign for the affordable housing project. The developers proposed reducing the retaining wall’s height to 15 feet and extending the site sign’s width for better visibility. After a thorough conversation about the sign dimensions and the visibility of the lettering, the board moved to accept the changes as part of the hearing.

Another topic was the potential removal of an affordable housing unit from the project. The board member expressed legal concerns, stating, “I think what the applicant is doing I would concur with it from a legal perspective of being out of abundance of caution.” The board contemplated the implications of this removal and its compliance with housing regulations. They also discussed alternatives to the building’s design, such as altering its shape to an L-shaped layout to reduce wall height and improve the economic feasibility of the project.

The meeting also focused on the interpretation of the ordinance’s language related to the super unit’s location within the building. The developers sought relief to position the super unit on the first floor, a condition that was part of the preliminary approval. The board deliberated on the ordinance’s strict interpretation and the necessity for relief from the ordinance’s specific section to facilitate this change.

Further deliberations included the proposal for a trail and walkway on the property, granting a 10-foot-wide easement to the borough for trail access. The developers clarified that the walkway would connect to the trail for community residents and emphasized that they were not promoting outside visitors walking through the site. The board discussed the landscape and grading of the area between the parking lot and neighboring property, the placement of trees, and appropriate landscaping to prevent drainage issues and respect the property line.

The board also addressed the need to designate specific stalls for guest and overnight parking. Concerns were raised about the drainage implications of the proposed parking stalls and the necessity for further review from engineering, planning, and legal perspectives. The board voted on modifications to the resolution and sought input from the applicant’s counsel, who had no objections.

Public comments included inquiries about the status of the parks and recreation master plan report, with the board agreeing to place it back on the agenda for review and scheduling a public hearing. Visitor concerns also touched on the development of affordable housing units on Mount Airy Road, where the applicant proposed to construct two two-story apartment buildings totaling 12 units. Discussions revolved around visibility from the site entrance, parking space layout, and the potential need for variance relief due to the proximity to downtown and mass transit.

The board considered a plan to address visibility and circulation issues at an intersection, expressing satisfaction with the proposed improvements. They discussed the easement along the property frontage accepted by the county and the need for variance relief regarding the monument sign at the front of the property.

A policy was established to avoid extending meetings past 11:00 p.m. and not starting new hearings after 10:00 p.m. to maintain a judicial hearing atmosphere. The live streaming of meetings on YouTube was discussed, along with the format for public comments.