1:34:46The meeting’s primary focus was the proposed development’s impact on local traffic and safety, particularly concerning the intersection of West Farms Road and Fort Plains Road. This volume was deemed below New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) thresholds, which define 100 peak hour trips as significant. Nonetheless, concerns about the jug handle at West Farms and Route 9 persisted, with public comments emphasizing existing safety issues, including accidents at the intersection.

2:08:54A notable element of the discussion was the applicant’s financial commitment to contributing 11% of the costs for a proposed traffic light at West Farms and Fort Plains Road, capped at $120,000. The township had independently initiated the traffic light proposal due to high traffic speeds on West Farms Road. Board members and the public expressed concerns about the development’s potential to exacerbate existing traffic problems, despite assurances from the traffic expert that the development would not alter current traffic patterns.

1:51:25Safety concerns extended beyond traffic, with discussions about a proposed retaining wall and its implications for emergency access. A board member highlighted the risk that the wall’s design could force individuals to walk along a building on fire before finding a safe exit. The need for clear egress routes in emergencies, especially for individuals with disabilities, was emphasized. The ongoing dialogue underscored the importance of ensuring that the development adhered to safety standards and provided adequate access for emergency vehicles.

2:08:54Public testimony played a role in the meeting, with several residents voicing concerns about the development’s impact on quality of life. One resident, James Fields, articulated fears about the self-storage facility, citing potential illegal activities and hazardous material storage as issues difficult to monitor. Fields also raised concerns about noise levels from trucks, comparing them to lawn mower noise, which could disrupt neighborhood tranquility. He urged the board to consider alternative uses for the site that might better align with community interests and still generate tax revenue.

Another resident, Mark Parisi, echoed these sentiments, praising Fields for his testimony. Parisi emphasized the importance of balancing development with community welfare, advocating for careful evaluation of the proposed project’s use aspects. The public’s input highlighted the ongoing debate surrounding zoning and development initiatives in Howell, focusing on preserving community quality of life while accommodating economic development.

57:41The board also addressed architectural and site design concerns, including a discussion about a decorative retaining wall. The wall, intended to serve both aesthetic and structural purposes, faced scrutiny for its height and materials. The representative clarified that the wall would be a decorative split-faced block, though questions about its design and function remained. The board requested visual details to ensure the wall met community aesthetic standards.

1:15:46The architectural presentation included updates to the self-storage and flex buildings’ designs, incorporating feedback from previous meetings. The new design featured increased window sizes and horizontal and vertical elements to create a smaller scale appearance. Despite these improvements, the board noted that the architectural treatment still fell short of complying with the zoning ordinance, prompting the applicant’s representatives to express willingness to work with the township to meet requirements.

0:00The meeting concluded with a decision to carry the application forward, allowing the applicant to address unresolved safety and design issues in future hearings. The board scheduled additional testimony for March 24, focusing on safety and grading concerns raised during the meeting.