The development project, designed to offer affordable housing options, put forth a plan that included a layout of residential units aiming to foster a community feel with on-street parking and convenient circulation for residents. The project also proposed amenities like a gazebo and a Tot Lot, with additional clearing for passive recreational space. Parking arrangements were discussed, noting that the plan exceeds the Residential Site Improvement Standard Parking requirements.

One topic was the requested waivers related to the Township’s Stream Corridor ordinance and the project’s alignment with the NJ DEP’s jurisdiction, alongside stormwater management plans adhering to current regulations. The site lighting plan was scrutinized, with discussions on the number and height of light fixtures to be used.

Infrastructure concerns were central to the meeting’s agenda. The board examined the feasibility of connecting the development to Sunny me Road, installing sidewalks along Jackson Street to Sunny me Elementary School, and implementing a center roadway within the buildings. The applicant provided justifications for not including sidewalks in certain areas, citing safety and environmental considerations.

Public participation brought forth additional concerns. David Elliot, a local resident, voiced opposition to the installation of sidewalks on Jackson Street due to the financial burden and maintenance responsibilities that they impose. Elliot also highlighted safety concerns regarding the proposal for primary access roads on Adams or Jackson Street. Discussions around stormwater management were particularly animated, with Elliot suggesting a berm to control runoff affecting his property.

The emergency access and pedestrian connection to Jackson Street was a topic of debate, with the applicant acknowledging plans to connect emergency access to the end of Jackson Street and to ensure sidewalk connection to the paving. The safety of pedestrian connections outside of Camp Lane was also addressed, with the applicant agreeing to pursue safe alternatives.

The meeting also covered environmental aspects and access requirements, including the need for a waiver due to two accesses being mandated, and the compliance of the project with the Redevelopment plan. The classification of parking spaces and the potential need for additional testing to determine soil types for stormwater management were discussed.

A resident’s concerns about flooding due to construction were addressed, and the need for a temporary easement for sewer line access was questioned. The impact of the proposed development on local utilities and potential flooding, and property access for sewer lines were also topics of concern.

Mr. Andrew Vishio, a professional engineer, provided testimony on traffic impact studies, emphasizing that the development would not affect the surrounding road network. The board professionals raised questions regarding pedestrian access and the adequacy of traffic study recommendations.

The board’s discussion about a proposed road improvement plan included the safety implications of a dedicated left-turn lane, the impact on existing infrastructure, and the need for additional survey work to evaluate the proposal. The traffic volume and the necessity of cartway adjustments for roadway safety were considered, with an agreement to reconvene for further discussion at future meetings.