Residents voiced their apprehensions about the Palmer application submitted by AR Bernardsville LLC, focusing on issues such as stormwater management, traffic congestion, and preservation of the town’s character. Two residents during the public comment period opposed the development, with one emphasizing the need for a comprehensive stormwater plan to mitigate runoff and pollution, while another underscored the project’s deviation from master plan guidelines by increasing heights, impervious surfaces, and reducing public spaces.

Further concerns were raised about the development’s impact on local businesses, pedestrian safety, and the destruction of historic structures. An 80-year-old resident mentioned the worsening of traffic conditions on their street, while another individual questioned the accuracy of the traffic study, calling for a more review and adjustment of the plan. The project’s architectural design, lack of public green space, and safety concerns, particularly for children walking to school, were also brought to the board’s attention.

The board faced pointed criticism over the project’s potential to change the town’s landscape, with one resident stating, “What we now have before us is essentially a massive apartment building with private residences. It might as well be fenced and gated.” The increase in traffic from the development was feared to impact safety and quality of life, as one resident noted, “There’s traffic coming from all over. It’s a highway. It’s not a street.”

Residents also questioned the financial implications of the project, citing concerns about the affordability of the proposed housing units and the potential increase in taxes and demand for services.

The financial aspects of the project came under scrutiny as well. Comments addressed the developer’s financial responsibilities, potential tax abatements, and the impact on property owners. The meeting also touched upon the need for affordable housing within the proposed development. A resident questioned the pilot payments. Maryanne Bea, a local resident living in affordable housing, strongly opposed the project, stating, “This is throwing us under the bus.”

In response to these concerns, the board acknowledged the challenges faced by residents and the necessity of collaborative efforts with the applicant to address the issues raised, though the board’s willingness to consider resident frustrations was conveyed. The lack of reports from police and fire departments was noted as a challenge in assessing certain safety aspects of the project. The need for emergency power capabilities for the residential units and the impact of the development on traffic flow were also discussed, with the board expressing uncertainty about finding a solution for the main driveway traffic.

The meeting concluded with the board emphasizing the importance of proper deliberation on the relief and conditions stipulated by the applicant. Questions were directed to the applicant for clarification before the public portion of the meeting was closed.

Additionally, an engineering report from the New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT) was discussed, which highlighted the applicant’s failure to meet site distance standards and raised questions about the validity of the application in light of the DOT’s comments. The board debated the status of the application, given the absence of written confirmation from the DOT.

The board also considered several deviations from the redevelopment plan, including parking space requirements, roof design, the height of the building, and the provision of emergency power. The need for a variance based on physical hardship or balancing test criteria was deliberated, as was the compliance of building entrances with the requirement to face a primary street or public space.