The primary focus of the meeting was the application for a three-story professional office building, prominently featuring a variance request for a parking area setback. The ordinance mandates a 20-foot setback from residential use, but the proposal seeks approval for a 10-foot setback. This variance is central to the project, as the property borders residential lots, necessitating a balance between commercial development and residential privacy. The board’s discussion acknowledged the need for a visual barrier to mitigate the impact on neighboring homes, with suggestions for a fence and landscaping enhancements along the easterly property line.

Parking design waivers were another critical aspect of the meeting. The design seeks to reduce the length of entrance and exit driveways, which would typically require 100 feet and 60 feet, respectively, but are proposed at 50 feet and 45 feet. Furthermore, the parking layout includes areas with fewer than three contiguous stalls, and entrance or exit drives are used for parking, which deviates from standard regulations. These waivers aim to address site constraints and optimize traffic flow within the lot, impacting overall accessibility and safety for both employees and visitors.

The drainage plan for the project was a point of concern. Originally, a surface bio-basin was planned, but it was replaced by a manufactured treatment device (MTD) due to proximity issues with the subsurface parking structure. This MTD will pre-treat stormwater before it enters the infiltration basins. However, residents expressed apprehension about potential water accumulation and erosion on adjacent properties. The engineer assured that the design maintains existing drainage patterns while reducing discharge, but public doubts remained.

Traffic and environmental impacts were also scrutinized. A traffic study projected volumes to the year 2035, revealing levels of service D and C during peak hours. The office building’s peak times are not expected to coincide with local school hours, yet the discussion highlighted potential congestion at nearby intersections. Questions arose about the necessity of further improvements, particularly at intersections like Pride Parkway, where a level of service E was identified. The planner emphasized the alignment of the project with the master plan’s goals for commercial development, but board members and the public continued to express concerns over the broader traffic implications.

The environmental impact statement (EIS) submitted for the project was deemed insufficient by some board members, given the development’s size exceeding 20,000 square feet. There were calls for a more comprehensive EIS to address potential ecological impacts thoroughly. The removal of 38 significant trees and the planting of 75 replacements were discussed, with emphasis on selecting species that would effectively absorb water, addressing concerns about the local high water table.

In addition to the office building proposal, the meeting briefly touched on an ordinance amending Chapter 244 of the land use ordinance, focusing on affordable housing requirements. The board unanimously affirmed that the ordinance was consistent with the master plan, highlighting the township’s efforts to adapt land use regulations in response to housing needs.