0:00Bridge Acquisitions, represented by attorney Tim Arch, petitioned for the extension, citing significant delays encountered while coordinating with multiple external agencies. The most notable delay arose from Warren County, where negotiations extended over a period of 19 months. Arch explained that these delays are not uncommon, often resulting from a “snowball effect,” where the approval from one agency becomes a prerequisite for others, leading to prolonged timelines. He emphasized that although Warren County was the primary cause, other bodies, including the Highlands Council, contributed to the extended timeline.

The board members questioned the details and justification for the 19-month extension. One member expressed skepticism. In defense, Arch explained that the Municipal Land Use Law provides for a mandatory one-year extension for pending outside agency approvals, alongside the possibility of a discretionary extension up to five years. The 19-month request was thus aligned with the duration of the delays substantiated by Warren County’s timeline.

Scinet noted that while some approvals could proceed concurrently, others, like the NJDEP’s, required local approval completion first. He provided insight into the Soil Conservation District and Highlands Council approvals, which could be pursued simultaneously, whereas NJDEP applications awaited the conclusion of local processes.

15:38Debates emerged over whether the extension would decelerate the project’s momentum. A developer’s representative assured the board that the extension would serve as a catalyst, propelling the project forward rather than hindering it. “I can tell you we are going full speed ahead,” the representative asserted. Board members probed further, questioning how the extension would interact with potential changes in local ordinances. Concerns were specifically raised about tree management ordinances and the project’s compliance with newly arising regulations during the extended approval period. The response clarified that the extension would protect the project from zoning regulation changes, though it was less definitive regarding other regulatory adjustments.

The board also examined the developers’ agreement, noting that a finalized version with the county was essential before any building permits could be issued. This agreement was seen as a key step in moving the project forward, and its final approval was critical to the project’s progress.

As the meeting progressed, the board deliberated on whether developers would need to submit revised plans if changes arose from the approvals. The developer’s representative confirmed their willingness to submit revised plans if necessary. This assurance seemed to placate some concerns about potential future complications.

Ultimately, the board moved towards a consensus on granting the extension. A motion to approve the 19-month extension was made and seconded, culminating in a unanimous vote in favor. Despite one member voicing concerns about the implications of such an extension and the need to safeguard the township’s overall interests, the board reached a resolution that balanced the project’s needs with local governance considerations.