The primary focus of the meeting centered on a traffic impact study presented by traffic engineer Mr. Banky. He detailed that the study, conducted in June 2023, evaluated traffic flows and implications associated with the proposed project. The study was based on nationally recognized standards, including data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ “Trip Generation” publication. Mr. Banky emphasized that the residential development would generate less traffic compared to the site’s current commercial zoning, which allows for up to 60,000 square feet of retail space.

During peak morning hours, the residential development is projected to generate approximately 90 to 100 fewer vehicles per hour compared to potential retail use. This reduction in traffic extends to evening peak hours and weekends. Mr. Banky highlighted that the current shopping center generates substantial traffic on JFK Boulevard, with about 40% of its traffic traveling to and from the south and west. In contrast, only about 20% of trips generated by the residential development are expected to head down JFK Boulevard.

Despite these findings, the methodology used in the traffic study was scrutinized. One participant challenged the reliance on theoretical models, questioning whether actual car counts were conducted on the streets. Mr. Banky defended the study’s robustness, explaining that it is rooted in extensive data collected from real traffic counts across various types of developments.

Concerns about local conditions unique to Franklin Township were also raised. One resident questioned whether the traffic study adequately represented local traffic patterns, given the reliance on national databases. Mr. Banky clarified that demographic analyses, including journey-to-work data, were incorporated to reflect local traffic behaviors accurately.

The debate extended to the adequacy of the data collection, with further inquiries about the estimated number of vehicles associated with the residential units and how traffic flows would be dispersed over time. Mr. Banky estimated that around 318 vehicles would be parked at the residential site, based on parking generation standards.

Discussions also touched on the building’s orientation and exposure to sunlight, with concerns about certain units receiving little to no natural light. One participant highlighted this issue, stating, “that side will not get any sunshine… I haven’t seen any sun on the building.” The architect addressed these concerns by explaining how the design’s orientation and surrounding structures, including trees, would affect sunlight access for residents.

A shift in focus to traffic safety and pedestrian concerns highlighted the potential impact on local infrastructure. Questions were raised about the safety of pedestrians, particularly children, within the Rucker’s Plaza complex. Participants expressed worries about managing increased pedestrian activity and preventing accidents, with suggestions for additional safety measures to ensure children’s safety.

Further discussions centered around the traffic implications of the proposed development on East Avenue and the surrounding area. A board member raised concerns about the lack of information regarding traffic implications, emphasizing the need to consider the broader context of ongoing traffic issues. It was noted that a comprehensive study on Eastern Avenue, funded by federal, state, and county resources, is currently underway to address serious traffic issues in the area.

The conversation revealed frustrations over the county’s slow progress in addressing long-standing traffic concerns, with references to a “fabulous million-dollar study” that would take years to yield actionable recommendations. The board’s traffic expert was questioned about observations of illegal traffic behavior at the existing plaza, but he stated he did not personally witness such incidents.

Questions about parking availability were also raised, with residents seeking clarification on the number of parking spaces allocated for the residential units. Although the engineer mentioned a total of 1,100 parking spaces across the entire site, the specific breakdown for residential use was not provided. The residential area was anticipated to have 387 parking spaces, which seemed to be more than the projected number of vehicles expected to be utilizing the parking.

The meeting concluded with discussions about the procedural aspects of the zoning board’s review process. A motion to carry the application to the next meeting was proposed, with the date set for September 19 at 6:30 PM. The need for further testimony from experts, including an economist who would address market conditions and demographics, was noted.