One notable issue discussed was the proposal’s compliance with existing zoning standards, particularly concerning the development’s density and height. The project involves 195 residential units with a maximum height of 60 feet, which some residents argue exceeds Livingston Avenue’s typical standards. Concerns were voiced that the inclusion of affordable housing should not justify an increase in the total number of units. A resident emphasized this point, stating that the community’s concern was not adequately addressed, and urged adherence to the approved terms. This sentiment was echoed by others who feared the environmental and infrastructural strain the project might cause.

To address these concerns, a board member explained that any changes to the proposal during the hearing process would necessitate a complete re-evaluation, including another public hearing. This assurance aimed to alleviate fears of unchecked amendments to the plan. The applicant’s representatives countered that the project had already been reduced from an initial proposal of 380 units to the current 195, asserting that the development would revitalize an underutilized site while complying with existing regulations.

Traffic and parking were also major points of discussion, with a detailed traffic impact study presented by Corey Chase, a traffic consultant. The study analyzed pre- and post-development conditions, focusing on critical peak hours for the mixed-use development. Chase explained that the analysis assumed the site was entirely vacant, leading to a conservative assessment of the new development’s impact. The study concluded that the anticipated increase in traffic would be minimal, with only a slight delay at the intersection of South Livingston Avenue and Route 10 during peak hours. However, residents remained skeptical, citing ongoing congestion issues and expressing concerns about the project’s potential to exacerbate existing traffic conditions.

Parking provisions were another focal point, with the project exceeding the required number of spaces and including electric vehicle charging stations. The design ensures that residential parking is assigned, while visitor parking is available both within the garage and on the surface level. The board discussed the importance of clear directional signage to guide retail patrons, especially if designated parking spaces were full. The visibility of parking spaces upon entering the site was emphasized, along with the necessity for landscaping not to obstruct sightlines.

The landscaping plans for the development also drew attention, particularly the removal and replacement of trees. The board scrutinized the proposed landscaping, which includes native and pollinator species and aims to maximize greenery within the development. Concerns were raised about maintaining adequate separation between the development and neighboring residences, with assurances given that a buffer of vegetation would be preserved and supplemented. However, skepticism remained about the effectiveness of these measures in creating sufficient separation. The condition of existing fencing was noted, with plans to replace deteriorated fencing confirmed.

Public comments further highlighted community worries about traffic safety and the potential for increased congestion on local roads. Residents articulated frustration over perceived inaction by local authorities in addressing speeding and cut-through traffic. The traffic engineer reassured attendees that the analysis did not anticipate significant blockages or delays, but residents questioned the reliability of these assurances.

In addition to traffic and density issues, the discussion also delved into the building’s design and amenities. The architect presented plans for a structure featuring two-level units styled as townhomes, with gradual slopes and hidden garages. The proposal includes amenity spaces, a pool area, and compliance with state decibel requirements for mechanical equipment. Questioning arose about the number of one-bedroom units with dens, as the proposal slightly exceeded the redevelopment plan’s specifications. The board expressed concerns about the potential for these dens to be used as additional bedrooms, prompting a discussion about enforcement measures and oversight.