The meeting commenced with the approval of a variance requested by Jayant Gale to construct a new single-family home on AEN Lane, Somerset. Gale explained that the existing house had already been demolished with prior approval, and the new structure would be a single-story home inspired by Indian architectural practices. Gale emphasized a covered courtyard design aimed at fostering family interaction. The application sought two variances: one for lot size and another for impervious coverage, both of which were supported by the non-conforming nature of adjacent lots.

John Chadwick, Gale’s planner, highlighted that the proposed house design minimized visual impact by angling the building toward the street and staying well under the maximum lot coverage. During the discussion, Chadwick reassured the board that only three trees would be removed, with other vegetation remaining intact. After public comments on preserving the natural landscape and community character, the board deliberated and voted unanimously to grant the variances, with the stipulation that the project complies with recommendations from the township’s professionals.

Attention then turned to a preliminary and final major site plan for a four-story apartment building on E Avenue. The hearing focused on the architect’s previous testimony, with the public and board members raising questions about the building’s environmental sustainability, fire safety, and historical context. The architect confirmed that the building would likely meet basic LEED certification requirements but noted that detailed construction documents were still in development.

Significant public concern centered on the building’s integration with the surrounding neighborhood, particularly its historical context. The architect presented photographic evidence to the historic commission to show that the building’s design aimed to blend with the area’s aesthetics. However, the absence of a balloon test for visual impact assessment drew skepticism from attendees. The architect insisted that the building would align with the shopping center’s appearance, although some residents feared it would stand out negatively.

The conversation also delved into the building’s amenities, or lack thereof, such as children’s playgrounds and gardening spaces. The architect clarified that while there would be amenity spaces and courtyards, specific features like playgrounds and basketball courts were not included. Discussions about storage security, outdoor space, and the distribution of affordable housing units highlighted resident concerns about living conditions in the proposed complex.

Traffic impact was a major topic, with a detailed traffic study presented to compare the proposed residential development’s impact against the existing retail space, specifically an old Kmart building. The study projected that the residential use would generate less traffic, with estimates indicating a reduction of 90 to 100 vehicles per hour during morning peak times and over 5,000 fewer daily vehicle trips. However, some board members and residents questioned the study’s methodology, emphasizing the need for empirical observation rather than theoretical models.

Concerns about pedestrian safety, particularly for children, were raised, with board members highlighting the importance of accurate traffic projections and adequate safety measures.