The restaurant seeking to increase its seating capacity from 54 to an additional 50 seats sparked a debate over the nature of its operations and the impact on parking. The applicant representative clarified that the request was not for a use variance, but solely for parking, as the expansion would not involve construction or site plan changes. Board members raised questions about the enforcement of seating capacity and the potential for future violations. Further, they explored the distinction between the usage of space as a banquet facility versus a restaurant, with concerns about the placement of buffet and juice counters in an overflow area. The discussion also touched on the potential challenges of enforcing parking requirements, given the shift in plans from accommodating 100 to 150 people due to parking constraints. The applicant’s representative assured the board that the township could enforce the approved capacity through monitoring site activity.

Expert witness Elizabeth Dolan provided detailed parking calculations for the proposed restaurant, citing the latest parking generation manual and advocating that the modest parking variance requested could be granted without adverse effects. The board members’ viewpoints varied, with some expressing the need for appropriate mitigation measures to address the variance.

A separate but equally significant matter involved the Muslim Foundation Incorporated, represented by John DeLuca and Dr. Afab Hussein, seeking a D3 variance for deviations from buffering requirements for new recreational space. The engineer and planner for the project presented a tree removal plan, addressing environmental concerns and detailing the proposed buffer and fence. The board inquired about the fence’s location, type, and height, as well as the grading on the site, to which DeLuca confirmed no grading changes were proposed.

Dr. Hussein testified on the intended use of the space, confirming there would be no amplified sound, parties, or summer camps – the area would be dedicated to children’s play and gardening. Zoning Board Attorney Francis Regan provided context, emphasizing the informal nature of the proposed use and the need for the applicant to prove that their proposal was consistent with the ordinance’s intent. He also raised questions about the proposed fence, compliance with buffering requirements, and the presence of area lights, underlining the necessity for safety in the lighting plan.

The board discussed the Technical Review Committee (TRC) report, focusing on the size and compliance of the proposed evergreen trees for buffering and the proposed area lights for safety. There was a debate over the necessity of the lighting, with safety concerns for children cited as the main reason for the proposed lighting. Eventually, the board approved the preliminary and final site plan with conditional use variances, contingent upon compliance with the TRC report and revising the site plans to align with the exhibits presented.

In the context of the retail facility awaiting a recreational license, the board examined how the peak parking demand was determined, and the impact of the change from medical to recreational use on parking requirements. The board received assurances that the parking variance sought for the facility’s expansion would not create issues due to different peak times and demand ratios for the various uses at the facility.

Lastly, the Zoning Board scrutinized the lighting plan for the property, questioning the necessity of six parking lot lights in an area not designated for parking and the potential light spillage into adjacent properties. The use of LED lighting and shields on fixtures was also debated. The board evaluated the buffer landscape plan, including the use of native and pollinator-friendly plants for stormwater management and tree replacement. After much deliberation, the board determined that the present buffer met the requirements, and no additional variances were necessary.