Central to the discussion was the proposed construction of a 24 by 36-foot storage building, intended to replace existing storage containers and enhance the dealership’s storage capabilities. The applicant’s representative clarified that the building would not host automotive activities, only serving to store non-operational parts and maintenance equipment. This building was designed to be approximately 16.5 feet high, with a peak height of 16 feet 7 inches, slightly exceeding the permitted height of 15 feet. The board considered granting a waiver for this minor deviation, citing the need for operational flexibility.

A significant topic of discussion was the potential impact on site aesthetics and compliance with zoning regulations. The board debated the height variance, ultimately agreeing to adjust the permitted height to 17 feet, allowing for future variations without requiring another review. The applicant emphasized that the building’s height would not be discernible from public roadways due to its location at the rear of the dealership.

The meeting also addressed the removal of existing storage containers on the site, a condition seen as beneficial due to the new building’s construction. The board underscored the importance of establishing a timeline for removing these containers once the new building is operational. A proposed timeframe of 30 days post-completion was suggested to ensure compliance.

Parking configurations were another focal point, particularly the setback variances along Route 38. The required setback is 50 feet, while the current proposal suggested extending parking closer to the road, raising safety concerns. The board debated the balance between maximizing parking space and ensuring safe vehicle maneuverability. A compromise was suggested, involving adjustments to angles and the layout of parking spaces to respect the existing five-foot setback while maintaining operational efficiency.

The board also tackled the issue of trash and recycling enclosures, with varying opinions on the necessity of a masonry structure versus a chain-link fence with privacy slats. The applicant argued that the current setup, located 290 feet from the main road, was adequate. Still, the board deferred the issue for further consideration, recognizing the importance of both visual and functional aspects in the redevelopment plan.

Street trees along Route 38 were another contentious topic. The ordinance requires street trees, but the dealership representatives opposed this, arguing that trees could obstruct views of the vehicles on display. Alternatives such as planting narrow upright shade trees or clustering trees were discussed, with the board showing openness to compromise. The applicant was encouraged to collaborate with the board’s professionals to develop a landscaping plan that met both regulatory and practical needs.

The board also addressed the need for a robust timeline for project completion, considering the dealership’s ongoing operations under prior approvals. The deadline for on-site improvements was tentatively set for November 1, 2026, with a separate deadline for NJ DOT approval by February 2, 2027. This two-tier deadline approach was proposed to allow aspects of the project not dependent on DOT approval to proceed independently.