01:03:06At the heart of the meeting was the proposed development of four single-family homes on a site currently zoned for professional office use. The applicant sought a D1 variance to permit residential construction, arguing that the site’s adjacency to predominantly residential zones made it particularly suitable for housing. The board was reminded that the property’s current zoning aligns with the township’s master plan, which still identifies it as fitting for business use.

01:35:25A significant portion of the discussion revolved around community safety concerns, especially for families with children, due to the site’s proximity to Route 38, a major highway. Local resident George Colner, represented by James Tambbor, raised objections, emphasizing that the area is unsuitable for children, given the high traffic volume and associated risks. Colner pointedly stated, “this is no place for children,” highlighting fears of noise and potential accidents. He suggested relocating the retention basin to a less hazardous area and modifying the access point to Sandra Lane to enhance safety, though this could redirect traffic through residential streets where children play, thereby raising additional safety concerns.

01:05:45The applicant’s representative countered these concerns by arguing that the development would include extensive buffering and screening to minimize any negative impact on the neighborhood. The representative asserted that the residential use would not impair the zone plan’s intent.

Further complicating the discussion was a board member’s concern about the implications of changing the development’s entrance from Laurel Ridge Road to Sandra Lane. This change was questioned for potentially increasing traffic in residential areas, thereby contradicting community safety objectives. The zoning official underscored that altering the entrance might not align with the best interests of local residents.

16:39The board also considered the technical aspects of the proposal, including the need for the development to adhere to New Jersey residential site improvement standards. The plan involves a shared driveway concept, commonly used in rural settings, with three homes sharing a private road and the fourth standing alone. Maintenance responsibilities, especially those of the proposed homeowners association (HOA), were scrutinized, given the financial burden such responsibilities could impose on a small number of homeowners.

12:07A civil engineer provided details regarding the location and design of the proposed development, noting its proximity to Route 38 and surrounding land uses. The development’s utility plan includes public water and sewer connections, with all utilities installed underground. The board discussed the importance of ensuring emergency vehicle access and compliance with local ordinances, particularly regarding the maintenance of retention basins as mandated by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

In addition to safety and technical concerns, the meeting addressed the broader implications of rezoning the PO district. The applicant argued that the decrease in demand for small professional offices justified a shift towards residential use, citing societal changes and market dynamics that have made the original zoning less viable. The board considered whether the proposed residential use offered a contemporary alternative that aligns with the township’s development goals and community character.

01:21:21Despite these arguments, public comments highlighted ongoing community apprehensions. Resident George Colner’s objections underscored the challenges of balancing development needs with resident safety and quality of life, particularly for families with children. The board was reminded of its previous decision to deny a similar request, urging consistency in their evaluation of the current proposal.