During the meeting, the Planning Board navigated through the complexities of the Jane Center’s application. The proposed archway and signage were central to the discussion. John Duca, representing the Jane Center, and site engineer Mitchell Ardman argued that the signs were culturally significant and would not negatively affect the area. Ardman detailed the amended site plan, which included the substantial archway with no variances required and additional signs for which variances were sought.

The application also entailed improvements to the property’s driveway, the addition of a sidewalk along the frontage, and enhanced landscaping. The historical timeline of the project came under scrutiny, with previous approvals and driveway alignment changes, particularly in response to county reviews, being dissected by the board. There was a debate about the necessity of aligning the driveway with a nearby shopping center and concerns about the potential impact of a future solar field on the alignment.

An issue was the expired approval for the driveway alignment, which sparked a heated exchange among the board members. Robert Thomas highlighted safety benefits of aligning the driveway but recognized the challenges with the implementation. The applicant’s attorney clarified that the current alignment followed the county’s guidance and that there was no disrespect intended toward the board’s previous decisions.

The Planning Board Attorney, Peter Vignuolo, underscored the county’s jurisdiction over the driveway’s location. The discussion expanded to consider driveway realignment and its implications for other intersections in the town, revealing varying perspectives among the board members on the alignment issue and the potential expansion of the church.

The design and dimensions of the signage at the Jane Center were elaborated on by the applicant’s representative, who provided justification for the design choices, including the setback for the archway and the decision against constructing a sidewalk due to a lack of pedestrian access needs. The focus then shifted to pedestrian access during events at the center, with concerns about navigating the driveway and safety issues. The board deliberated on the practicality of pedestrian access and the necessity of paved walkways, considering the nature of events held at the center.

Michael Orsini questioned the need for a sidewalk, while Mustapha Mansaray suggested that investments could be better allocated to landscaping rather than sidewalk construction. The lack of street trees in the vicinity was noted, and the board engaged in a debate about the most effective type of landscaping to screen the caretaker’s house, with suggestions of using vines or ornamental plants.

The board also addressed the issue of overflow parking during large events and the safety implications. Mihir Shah, representing the applicant, explained the use of shuttle services to manage parking during major events.

Ultimately, the board passed a motion to approve the Archway project with conditions, including enhanced landscaping, screening of the caretaker’s house, construction of a sidewalk along Cedar Grove Lane, and the stipulation that lighting be turned off at 10 p.m., except for special religious events. It was agreed that all improvements must be completed before the archway’s construction, with township staff assigned to ensure the fulfillment of these conditions.

In other business, the board supported the transition towards a digital submission process for applications. Despite concerns about potential distractions from electronic devices, the board members largely backed the proposed digital transition, with further specifics to be ironed out before implementation.

Additionally, the board rescheduled hearings for the Guda and Davidson properties and approved resolutions for BBQ Tonight LLC and Pulio International Inc. The approval of past meeting minutes was also addressed without debate.