One notable issue discussed was the warehouse proposed by Onyx 789 LLC, with the potential impact on local traffic patterns and pedestrian safety taking center stage. Board members scrutinized the driveway design, debating its ability to accommodate the expected increase in truck traffic and suggesting possible alterations, including straightening the driveway or reducing the building size. The direction of truck traffic was also of concern, with questions raised about the suitability of Elizabeth Avenue and Old New Brunswick Road to handle the anticipated volume.

The lack of updated traffic counts and level of service calculations was a point of contention, as board members expressed dissatisfaction with the current estimates from the it manual, hinting that these might not adequately reflect the actual impact on the intersections near Elizabeth Avenue and New Brunswick Road, as well as Old New Brunswick Road. Given the potential ramifications of the development on the local traffic, the board highlighted the necessity for a more comprehensive analysis that would consider a worst-case scenario, preparing for any plausible escalation of vehicular activity in the area.

Adding to these concerns were discrepancies in the submitted plans, particularly regarding signage variances and the architectural building elevations. The accuracy and consistency of the plans were questioned, with an emphasis on ensuring that the board had reviewed and assessed the correct documents. The debate extended to the changed dimensions of the proposed building, the unclear presence of a mezzanine, and the implications on parking requirements and variances.

The meeting also touched upon the concerns of Buckeye Pipeline regarding the proposed site plan and the impact on their easement agreement. While a representative from Buckeye Partners LP requested the opportunity to provide testimony from their engineer, it was agreed that this would occur at a subsequent meeting after further discussions between the engineers.

Additionally, there was a nuanced exploration of the architectural and logistical aspects of the proposed building, which included an overview of the building’s height, design, and functionality as a dry goods storage facility. The board’s inquiries delved into the building’s compliance with zoning and ADA requirements, as well as the aesthetic impact, requesting a more realistic representation of the building’s design features and its integration into the surrounding landscape. The board also noted the importance of conducting a sightline analysis to gauge the visibility of the proposed structure.

The applicant’s presentation included testimony from a traffic engineer who explained the methodology behind the traffic volume estimates for the warehouse, which had been revised in light of the building size adjustments. Despite this, board members remained circumspect, engaging in ongoing debates regarding the accuracy of the traffic analysis and its congruency with the proposed development.

The board ultimately decided to carry the application to a later date, emphasizing the importance of resolving the outstanding issues before moving forward. No further public comments were made, and the applicant was urged to consult with staff to address the board’s concerns and potentially revise the application.