At the heart of the board’s discussions was the Ford Plains Partners LLC proposal involving two new buildings: a flex space and a self-storage facility. The project required a use variance due to the flex space not being a permitted use in the HD1 Zone and because of the presence of multiple uses on the same property. The board examined site plans and traffic patterns, with professionals outlining modifications intended to enhance safety and efficiency. The updated plans proposed separate entrances for the two building types to manage traffic flow better and avoid interference between different site operations.

The flex space component of the proposal drew particular attention due to its potential to generate significant traffic. The board deliberated on whether the flex space would create less traffic than other potential uses, such as drive-through establishments like Dunkin’ Donuts. The applicant’s representatives argued that the development would generate less traffic than these high-traffic businesses and cited the suitability of the site for the proposed uses, given its geometry and location within the HD1 Zone.

A professional planner, Christine Nazaro, provided testimony supporting the development’s suitability, despite its deviation from existing zoning regulations. Nazaro emphasized that the site would transition from a non-conforming residential use to a commercial one, aligning with the township’s goals for economic development. She argued that the proposed self-storage facility, now a permitted use in the HD1 Zone, would generate minimal traffic compared to other potential uses.

Traffic implications were a recurring theme, with residents expressing concerns during the public comment period. Antonello Bianco, representing the Tuscana Community, presented petitions against the development, citing detrimental effects on traffic, safety, and aesthetics. Other residents echoed these concerns, highlighting potential noise issues and the impact of increased commercial activity on local roads.

The board also scrutinized the project’s compliance with zoning regulations, including building height restrictions and parking configurations. Modifications to architectural plans were discussed, with adjustments made to meet community standards and regulatory requirements. The board underscored the need for further documentation and analysis, particularly regarding traffic impacts and infrastructure capabilities, before rendering a decision on the application.

Another issue was the development’s sewer capacity and its implications for surrounding properties. The board sought clarity on how the proposed development would interact with existing sewer infrastructure, particularly in light of previous commitments to facilitate connections for other property owners. The applicant’s representatives clarified the terms of sewer agreements, emphasizing their adequacy to accommodate the development and future connections.

In addition to these discussions, the board addressed concerns about the Bungalows property, where residents were reportedly still living despite an agreement to vacate. The board expressed ethical concerns about the living conditions and sought clarity on the applicant’s plans for this site.

As the meeting concluded, the board outlined plans for future discussions, emphasizing the importance of community input and comprehensive evaluation of the proposals. The board scheduled additional meetings to ensure all concerns were addressed and to allow for continued public participation in the decision-making process.