A central point of concern was the traffic impact of the proposed 38-unit townhouse development. The development requires a D1 use variance due to its location in a single-family R2 District, where multifamily residential use is not a permitted principal use. Despite reassurances from the applicant’s traffic engineer that the anticipated increase in traffic would be minimal, residents remained skeptical. Caroline Brany, a local resident, questioned the traffic study’s finding of an average increase of just one second in traffic delay, seeking clarity on how this would affect local intersections, particularly at Bell Avenue and Route 206. Concerns were also raised about the limited capacity of Bell Avenue to handle an increase in vehicles, especially during peak hours, with residents describing the street as hazardous.

Additionally, there was considerable discussion about the adequacy of parking and pedestrian safety within the development. The proposal includes two driveways on Bell Avenue, each 26 feet wide, to accommodate two-way traffic flow. However, residents and board members expressed concerns about pedestrian safety, particularly for children, in the absence of designated crosswalks and sidewalks. There was a call for additional pedestrian safety measures to ensure safe navigation through the area, with suggestions to include crosswalks near certain buildings to enhance access to sidewalks.

Flooding concerns were another major topic, with residents like one local presenting photographs of their backyard and neighboring properties being affected by storm sewer backups. The resident emphasized that recent county engineering work had exacerbated flooding issues, urging the board to consider the implications of the new development on these existing problems. The applicant’s team acknowledged the issues and expressed willingness to collaborate with the board’s engineer to explore solutions, such as upgrading the drainage swale.

The board also delved into the architectural aspects of the development, with testimonies from professionals like Jesse Robison, an architect working under supervision due to not being licensed in New Jersey. The board scrutinized the architectural testimony, emphasizing the importance of having a licensed architect affirm the application. The design features five townhouse buildings with peaked roofs, aligning with the architectural style of the neighborhood. However, the need for variances related to the floor area ratio, building height, and impervious coverage remained a contentious issue. The proposed buildings exceed the maximum height allowed, with three stories reaching approximately 40 feet, compared to the permitted 35 feet.

Environmental considerations were highlighted, with the applicant pointing out that the site’s redevelopment would involve extensive landscaping and stormwater management improvements. The development is positioned as a transition from a non-residential industrial building to a residential use, with claims that it aligns with the master plan’s goals to offer diverse housing options. Nevertheless, board members and residents expressed concerns about the impact of the height and mass of the proposed buildings, particularly on neighboring properties on Midall Street.

In response to the perceived lack of recreational space for families, the possibility of incorporating a fenced-in children’s play area was discussed, along with landscaping enhancements. Despite the proposal’s attempts to address community concerns, skepticism remained about whether the development would adequately support families with children. The potential for increased traffic and the absence of ample green space fueled worries about the impact on the neighborhood’s character and safety.