A central topic of the session was the stormwater management plan for the project, which received considerable attention from the board members and public participants. The applicant’s engineering team presented a detailed design incorporating green infrastructure techniques, notably a bio-retention rain garden, intended to manage runoff efficiently. This plan included the installation of underground detention basins and the use of permeable paving to comply with New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and township regulations. The goal was to reduce offsite runoff, especially in response to the steep slope and soil characteristics of the site, which previously directed about 95% of rainwater off the property.

The board probed the compliance of these designs, with one board member expressing skepticism about the current plan’s compliance status. The applicant confirmed that the stormwater management system was designed to manage larger storm events, specifically the 200-year storm, and emphasized that no variances or waivers were necessary under the current regulations. However, the dialogue revealed concerns about potential runoff impacts on adjacent properties and the adequacy of the proposed systems in achieving sediment removal. The applicant reassured the board that any necessary adjustments would be considered post-construction should issues arise.

In tandem with stormwater management, the board engaged in a detailed examination of the buffer requirements mandated by the township’s zoning code, particularly given the proximity of the development to residential properties. A contentious point was the compliance with section 69.3 of the zoning code, which outlines buffer standards between residential and non-residential uses. The applicant’s representative pointed out existing wooden fences and landscaping meant to satisfy these buffer requirements, although there was debate over whether these provisions adequately protected neighboring properties. Questions were raised about the possibility of reducing parking spaces to enhance the buffer, but the applicant maintained that parking requirements needed to be met.

Tree removal and replacement obligations also surfaced as an aspect of the board’s deliberations. The applicant faced inquiries about the integrity of tree replacement calculations and whether trees removed during demolition had been accounted for correctly. With prior plans indicating the removal of mature trees, the board emphasized the importance of adhering to ordinance requirements for tree replacement, with assurances from the applicant to comply, including financial contributions if physical space limitations precluded full replacement.

Lighting design for the project emerged as another focal point, especially concerning its potential impact on nearby residences. The proposed lighting plan adhered to township standards. However, participants raised questions about the lighting’s color temperature, with concerns about the environmental and aesthetic impact. The applicant expressed a willingness to consider adjustments to the lighting plan to address these concerns, though any changes might necessitate additional installations.

As discussions continued, the board scheduled a special meeting to further evaluate the proposal. The applicant agreed to extend the time for board action.