Central to the deliberations was the critique of the stormwater management report submitted by the developers. A professional engineer highlighted major deficiencies in the plan, particularly the lack of comprehensive soil testing, which is essential for effective stormwater design. The absence of detailed soil data made it difficult to ascertain whether the site met both local and state regulations. This deficiency was underscored by the engineer, who emphasized the necessity of resolving such issues prior to project approval, as the current proposal did not comply with either local or state regulatory standards. Without sufficient soil testing, the board was cautioned against making an informed decision, as expressed by the engineer, “there are too many questions… for me to want to deal with this post approval.”

Concerns about the flood hazard area and riparian zones further complicated matters. The development site, characterized by a water course with a drainage area exceeding 50 acres, required the definition of a flood hazard area under the New Jersey Administrative Code. However, the extent of this area remained unclear, raising further compliance issues. Additionally, the riparian zone, which should be calculated from the top of the bank of the stream, was potentially miscalculated, excluding parts of the parking lot within its limits. This oversight, along with restrictions on vegetation removal from wooded areas within the riparian zone, rendered the board unable to make informed decisions about the proposed improvements.

The board also tackled discrepancies in the stormwater management design, notably the proposed storm brick system. This underground storage system, intended to control stormwater quantity, faced scrutiny due to its placement below the seasonal high water table, which could lead to inefficiencies in water retention. The engineer pointed out that the system’s effectiveness would be compromised unless adjustments were made to its depth or overall dimensions.

Turning to the conditional use standards, the board analyzed the proposed site’s compliance with the municipal zoning ordinance. The project, which involved converting a residential area for non-residential use, required adherence to specific standards, including lot coverage and buffer requirements. The board examined whether the development met the 35% maximum lot coverage allowance, particularly with the inclusion of a 900-square-foot playground area, which could potentially exceed the threshold. Additionally, the buffer requirements, especially those next to residential zones, were scrutinized, as the current plans allegedly violated the ordinance by incorporating drainage improvements within the designated buffer area.

The interpretation of the buffer ordinance itself became a contentious topic. The applicant and objectors held differing views on whether the ordinance merely established a setback requirement or imposed additional conditions beyond a linear distance. The applicant contended that the buffer should be understood as a straightforward linear distance, similar to terms like “frontage” or “depth,” while objectors argued that the term “buffer” typically implies more substantial requirements, including landscaping and physical improvements. This disagreement extended to the applicability of different sections of the ordinance, with the applicant asserting that certain buffer standards were not applicable to their property.

The board, yet to reach a definitive conclusion on the matter, continued to evaluate the interpretations of both the applicant and the objectors. The discussions also touched upon the environmental impacts of the development, particularly concerning the watercourse referenced in the plans. Questions arose about the distinctions between terminologies such as “ditch” versus “stream” and their implications for compliance with development standards.

As the meeting progressed, logistical considerations for future meetings were discussed, with the board expressing the need for a suitable venue for an April meeting. The board agreed to carry the matter over to April 2nd at 7:30 PM in the current building, emphasizing that no further notice would be required.