1:30:26A significant portion of the meeting concentrated on the application by a developer seeking approval for a contractor’s yard with outdoor storage, not typically permitted in the Highway Commercial Zone. This proposal attracted attention due to the applicant’s need for a use variance. The discussion was marked by objections from local residents, including George Lucas and Bonnie Rivier, who articulated their apprehensions about increased traffic and diminished property values. Lucas remarked on the existing traffic issues on Route 571, emphasizing the negative impact the project could have on local congestion. Rivier underscored that the project did not align with current zoning regulations and questioned its benefits to the community.

0:28The board heard from Mr. Anitilly, a professional engineer, who presented a revised circulation plan to address traffic concerns. The plan proposed a redesign to separate truck and car traffic, intending to improve safety and efficiency. Despite these assurances, residents like Paul Rier sought clarity on the types of vehicles that would frequent the site and voiced concerns about large machinery potentially impacting neighborhood safety and quality of life. The board maintained that any conditions or restrictions would be established upon potential approval of the application.

31:50Traffic engineer Mr. Ray elaborated on the revisions, confirming that the plan would accommodate emergency and service vehicles while minimizing interactions between trucks and passenger vehicles. However, the discourse grew contentious as audience members expressed frustration over ambiguity in the traffic report, emphasizing the need for clear communication regarding the number of trucks expected and their impact on local roads.

In addressing environmental concerns, the board considered the implications of storing materials outdoors, which necessitated the variance in the first place. Mr. Anitilly clarified that wetlands delineation permits had been obtained, but doubts were raised about their validity, given they were issued in 2012. The board assured that any additional evidence could be brought forward by objectors in future meetings.

1:49:29The meeting also touched on another application within a Pinelands zone, highlighting the challenges of development in environmentally sensitive areas. The proposal involved a contractor’s office with outdoor storage, drawing scrutiny over waste management and potential environmental contamination. Public comments from residents like Tony Maxfield and Gilbert Harris highlighted concerns about improper waste handling and its impact on local wildlife and residential properties.

2:43:23The board emphasized the need for thorough inspections to verify the current conditions of the site, particularly given its location in the Pinelands. The applicant’s representative, Mr. Murphy, proposed measures to delineate buffer zones to prevent encroachment and address environmental safeguards. However, the board decided that a report on site conditions was essential before proceeding with a decision on the application.

1:08:50Mr. Rivier, a formal objector, expressed concerns over the structure of future meetings, particularly the opportunity to present rebuttals to the applicant’s summation. The board assured that public comments would follow presentations.