The applicant’s representatives, including Dennis Collins and Andrew Comey, provided detailed presentations, covering the site’s layout, surrounding uses, and the proposed development. Throughout the deliberation, various aspects of the project were debated, such as design waivers for the driveway width, use of gravel in the staging area, and lighting levels. The board engaged with the applicant’s representatives, seeking clarity on the aesthetic and functional aspects of the project, including fencing and landscaping.

The proposed development faced scrutiny over its impact on the wooded wetlands to the south, with the developers detailing adjustments to the buffer area and the addition of a 10-foot tall privacy fence. Concerns about the landscaping were raised by board members, leading to discussions on the necessity of a six-foot high landscaped berm along Tinton Falls Road and the overall landscaping plan. Other points of discussion included the location of trash enclosures, sidewalk waivers, and a proposed sign and billboard on the property.

A public comment session opened the floor to questions on topics such as the traffic study and engineering plans, where concerns about the traffic study and the engineering plans were raised. Further, there was a debate on the necessity of a maintenance gate entrance on Tinton Falls Road, the height of the berm along the buffer wall, and the type of fencing to be used.

The planning board also discussed traffic conditions and safety measures in relation to the proposed development. The speakers, including a traffic engineer, cited low crash rates and adequate sight lines as evidence of the development’s safety. The issue of left turn access and potential traffic hazards near a nearby diner was acknowledged. An architectural testimony highlighted the variances and waivers sought for the project, arguing that the development aligned with the township’s zoning plan and would not cause substantial detriment to the zone plan or public good.

A property owner during the public comment expressed concerns about the lighting from the proposed development and its impact on neighboring properties. The positioning of the lights to prevent them from hanging below the mounting structure was a particular point of concern.

In addition to the Route 34 development, the meeting also covered Lowe’s Company Inc.’s application for an amendment to their site plan to allow certain activities in their parking lot. The professional planner, Kevin Buer, outlined the revisions, which included changes to parking spaces, outdoor storage areas, and parking lot circulation. The application was met with comfort from the board members and was unanimously approved.

Another item of note was the ongoing discussion about the potential redevelopment of a corridor along Route 9. The board evaluated the corridor for designation as an area in need of redevelopment, focusing on the possibility of mixed-use development and bringing sewer infrastructure to the area. The designation, pursued as a non-condemnation, aims to provide property owners with additional options and opens up financing possibilities for infrastructure improvements. Property owners voiced concerns about the timeline and impact of the redevelopment, seeking reassurances and clarifications from the board.

The meeting also entailed procedural aspects such as the appointment of Nick Kor as the new chairman and Joe Cristiano as the vice chairman, approval of minutes from previous meetings, and discussions on ordinances related to farmland preservation and stormwater management.