The development, located on a 16.9-acre parcel north of Casino Drive, plans to preserve 145 acres, or 62%, of the 236-acre southern parcel. Designed to be both unique and visually pleasing, the project aims to fulfill the requirements of the ml14 Zone, which stipulates the provision of 10 square feet of recreational area per market-rate unit—exceeding this by offering 5,025 square feet of such space.

Stormwater management was a topic, with the applicant detailing the construction of 14 large-scale basins and 33 smaller ones, including four bio-retention basins for new green infrastructure. These measures are designed to filter stormwater before it returns to the ground, helping to maintain environmental integrity and compliance with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection stormwater regulations.

The board also discussed the proposed fence and landscape preferences from neighboring residents, who preferred a chain-link fence with artificial ivy covering over a board-on-board fence and requested evergreen arborvitaes along their property line. The board showed support for deferring to the preferences of the board professionals and the residents on these matters.

The board examined the technical aspects and revisions of the plans, expressing satisfaction with the applicant’s efforts to address previous concerns. This included the debate on the type of surface for a storage area with the board ultimately open to the proposal of heavy-duty pavement as long as it was impervious and met environmental standards.

Further, the board addressed the township’s responsibility for maintenance and financial contributions, with discussions centered on the design of public and private roads within the development. The township will be responsible for snow removal and emergencies on public roads, with funding expected to come from taxation.

The board also focused on the project’s compliance with building and impervious coverage regulations, lot sizes, and the need for full road restoration on Casino Drive and Haven Bridge Road following the installation of an off-site sanitary sewer.

The board’s discussion included a robust analysis of the proposed lighting plan, landscaping package, and buffer plans, with a particular emphasis on the supplemental planting under the guidance of the board’s consultant. The location and impact of a standpipe tank for water storage were also addressed, with the board requesting further clarification on its potential impact on the township’s water pressure system.

The meeting moved on to the next witness, Scott Kennel, a traffic expert from McDon and R Associates, who presented a analysis of the interior road system, traffic serviceability, and access points for the development project. Kennel’s testimony included discussions on site distance, traffic signal installation timing, and the compliance of the road design with safety and parking standards.

The debate continued on various waivers requested by the applicant, including those related to light intensity, curbing frequency, and sidewalk installation. The board ultimately decided to address conflicts between the local ordinance and the Residential Site Improvement Standards (RSIS) by stating that the lesser width prevails, while also being open to granting relief if necessary.

The discussion also raised concerns about school transportation, with the board debating the likelihood of school buses navigating the cul-de-sacs within the development and the possibility of creating concrete pads for children to wait for buses if needed.

The board concluded that the applicant had the right to rely on the most recent list from the tax assessor regarding the notification process for the development project. This came after a public concern was raised about discrepancies in notification lists, with the board ensuring that all legal requirements for public notification had been met.

The board stipulated that the applicant would comply with the lookalike ordinance, and made recommendations regarding architectural details such as louvers or venting. They also agreed upon various stipulations, including signage, a sidewalk waiver, color matching of vents, language in HOA documents, and more.