Central to the meeting was the application by 821 Bridgewater LLC, which sought approval to construct 64 residential units, including 13 designated as affordable housing. The application required several variances, including a D1 use variance for multifamily dwellings and a D5 density variance, as the proposed floor area ratio exceeded local zoning limits. Board members expressed concerns over the project’s density, which was viewed as excessive for the area, exceeding the permitted density by a significant margin.

Traffic safety emerged as a primary concern, with board members and residents voicing skepticism over the traffic expert’s testimony that the development would result in only a nominal increase in traffic. The expert argued that the proposed development would generate minimal additional traffic, citing Department of Transportation data suggesting the project would result in 37 AM peak hour trips and 44 PM peak hour trips. However, board members questioned the implications of this increase on existing traffic conditions, particularly given the complex and potentially hazardous traffic patterns at nearby intersections.

During public comments, residents shared their apprehensions regarding the project’s impact on local traffic conditions. Rob Espazito, a resident, emphasized the existing challenges in the area, noting aggressive driving behaviors and traffic congestion that would likely be exacerbated by the new development. He challenged the traffic assessments presented, arguing that the real-world conditions contradicted the expert evaluations.

Environmental concerns were also prominent in the discussions. The proposed removal of over 400 mature trees raised alarms about potential flooding and ecological disruption. Residents highlighted the historical significance of the site, which currently features a wooded lot and a historical farm stand, arguing that the development would compromise the area’s scenic and environmental value. Lisa Ferrara, another resident, stressed the potential environmental risks, noting the presence of wetlands and steep slopes on the site, which could exacerbate existing infrastructure strains.

The debate over the development’s density was further fueled by the township’s obligations under the Mount Laurel doctrine, which requires the provision of affordable housing. While some board members acknowledged the need to comply with state mandates, there was a consensus that the proposed density was unsuitable for the site’s characteristics and would negatively impact the community. A board member labeled the project as “one of the most egregious, flagrant examples of overdevelopment” encountered during their tenure, highlighting the significant deforestation and environmental impact as critical factors against the proposal.

The board ultimately voted on a motion to deny the application, which initially failed by a narrow margin. A subsequent motion to approve the application also did not achieve the necessary supermajority, leading to the application’s denial.

In a related matter, the board unanimously supported a use variance for the Jewish Community Center (JCC), recognizing its role as a community asset. The JCC’s expansion proposal was seen as beneficial, with plans to extend open space and accommodate various community activities.