The property, formerly a Texaco gas station, was rezoned in late 2019 to accommodate a 62-unit inclusionary community along with 10,000 square feet of medical office space. The applicant had already secured various external agency approvals but encountered a delay due to requirements from JC P&L, which mandated the transformers to be outside the building. The applicant’s civil engineer, Michael Lonzafama, presented a modified building footprint to facilitate the transformer relocation, which led to a reduction of the building by approximately 1,100 square feet.

The board’s discussion was heavily focused on the technicalities of the modifications, the environmental impact, and the potential noise implications for the surrounding residential areas. The applicant sought a waiver from submitting a new environmental impact statement (EIS), as the modification was minor and did not change the overall scope of the project. The board granted the waiver, allowing the hearing to continue.

Public testimony and concerns were raised about the potential noise emission from the transformers, prompting the applicant to commit to studying sound-deadening solutions in the concrete wall to mitigate any noise. The board also considered the impact of the transformer placement on the number and layout of affordable housing units within the project. The applicant reassured that the unit count and affordability requirements remained unchanged despite the modifications.

The applicant’s request for an extension of the site plan approval became a focal point of debate, with the developer citing challenges in obtaining necessary approvals from the utility company, which had delayed the project. Members of the public expressed concerns about the possible changes in tenancy for the additional space, questioning if this would represent a material change to the application. The board’s planner addressed the issue, noting a recently passed rooftop prohibition ordinance, which necessitated enclosures for rooftop amenities. The applicant argued that the use of the space remained consistent with the original plan.

A member of the public questioned the placement of affordable housing units within the architectural plans, prompting a clarification that the units were distributed throughout the project. The applicant’s legal counsel discussed the extensive negotiation process with JCPL over the transformer placement, emphasizing efforts to comply with the resolution of approval.

The board considered various viewpoints on granting the extension request, debating the legal standards and the developer’s diligence. Ultimately, the board granted the extension for one year, until October 6, 2024, taking into account the developer’s vested interest in the project and the need to comply with original approvals.

Another notable topic of discussion was the introduction of two ordinances. One aimed to amend the prohibited uses section of the DRZ in the township, which included a list of further prohibitions such as pawn shops, sexually oriented businesses, and smoke shops. Board members debated the definitions of these uses and their alignment with the character of the township. A roll call vote determined that the ordinance was inconsistent with the master plan.

The board also discussed a proposed demolition ordinance. The ordinance required applications to be made to the Historic Preservation Commission prior to the issuance of a total demolition permit and included an appeal process for decisions. The ordinance was eventually voted not inconsistent with the master plan.