A point of discussion was stormwater management, specifically whether existing developments should be grandfathered under old regulations or comply with new ones when seeking extensions for their applications. The chairman’s statement in the press regarding changes in stormwater management regulations since the initial application submission spurred debate. It was questioned if developments existing prior to these new regulations could be considered exempt. One public member suggested that developers should adhere to the new stormwater regulations, even when applying for extensions.

Another important topic was the continuation of a hearing regarding an application from AR Bernardsville. The application involved a redevelopment project that included various deviations from local zoning requirements, with a focus on parking and building height. The applicant’s attorney expressed gratitude for the opportunity to present additional testimony and public comments. A professional planner, John McDon, provided detailed insights into the project, highlighting the need for relief from five specific deviations outlined in a memo from board professional Mr. Zabo. McDon emphasized that the project, involving three tax lots, aimed to revitalize the area with a mixed-use building featuring ground-level retail and residential apartments, despite the minor deviations requested.

Parking requirements were an area of contention. The proposed development included 102 parking spaces, meeting local standards but falling short of the 122 spaces outlined in the RSIS (Residential Site Improvement Standards). Expert testimony supported the adequacy of the proposed parking supply, referencing the regulatory flexibility in RSIS under certain conditions. However, concerns were raised about whether the parking numbers included credits for electric vehicle (EV) parking and whether the spaces would be designated for residents or guests. The potential for overflow parking issues in downtown public facilities was also discussed.

Building height and design were scrutinized, particularly the deviation involving a four-story structure. Although the building’s overall height complied with local regulations, the design included a drop-down foundation to accommodate parking and circulation, responding to the site’s topography. This approach aimed to minimize public impact, with parking located at the back of the building. The justification for the deviations was framed within the C1 hardship criteria related to land characteristics and the C2 balancing test, which evaluates the project holistically. The project was presented as a visually appealing addition to the community, aligning with the goals of the redevelopment plan.

Emergency power provisions for the residential development sparked considerable debate. The Redevelopment Plan stipulated that emergency power should be provided, but there was confusion over whether this implied full power for all units or merely essential services. Discussions highlighted the importance of maintaining essential services such as emergency lighting, elevators, and fire safety systems during power outages. However, the practicality and financial burden of supplying full emergency power to each unit were questioned, with calls for more detailed financial assessments.

Public comments and questions addressed various aspects of the project, including parking requirements for restaurants, the grading and height of the building, and the appropriateness of public input in the zoning process. It was clarified that any changes in tenant use would require reassessment of parking availability. The board emphasized the importance of maintaining community standards while accommodating new developments.