The focal point of the session was the proposed three-story structure designed to include a mix of two-bedroom and three-bedroom units, along with associated site improvements such as parking spaces, a playground area, lighting, landscaping, and signage. The project required several variances, including adjustments to height, setback, parking size, setback to the right of way, location of the curb cut, and a use variance. The applicant’s representatives put forth a strong case for the project, emphasizing its adherence to conditional use height and bulk standards and the broader advantages such as addressing affordable housing needs, promoting general welfare, and enhancing the visual environment.

The board and the project’s attorney delved into the implications of removing the commercial component from the proposal, focusing on mitigating the impact on residential neighbors. The discussion illuminated the suitability of the site for a fully residential construction and the need for variances related to lot coverage and building height. One particular concern raised was privacy issues related to balconies within the proposed building’s design.

A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to addressing the project’s compliance with the township’s affordable housing ordinance. The importance of affordable housing was a recurring theme, with the attorney underscoring the potential for adjustments in bedroom mixes based on the township’s affordable housing consultant’s recommendations. This point was critical, as it tied the project directly to the local government’s efforts to meet affordable housing requirements.

Another topic was the impact on local traffic and parking. The project’s traffic engineer presented a traffic impact analysis. The engineer’s assessment included the addition of visitor parking beyond the minimum requirements and stressed that the proposed residential use would be less impactful on traffic than commercial alternatives. However, these claims were met with skepticism from both board members and the public, with particular concern over the assessment’s adequacy considering summer traffic patterns and the presence of school and camp buses in the area.

Public participation highlighted the community’s concern regarding the development’s influence on traffic flow and safety, especially during peak summer months. An attendee contested the traffic engineer’s projection of a mere 10-second average wait time for vehicles exiting the site, arguing that this underestimated the current traffic conditions. This disagreement sparked a broader discussion among board members about the validity and timing of the traffic study, which took place during a less busy time of the year.

Further, the board engaged with the intricacies of stormwater management, with the engineer presenting a plan that included permeable pavement areas to mitigate runoff on-site. The landscaping plan was also scrutinized, which proposed the addition of 412 new plants to enhance the streetscape and provide a buffer to neighboring properties. The focus was on creating an attractive and functional environment that would not only meet but exceed the required standards.

The public’s voice was again heard during the meeting when concerns were raised about the project’s drainage system, particularly the modeling of 100-year storm events and possible impacts on adjacent properties. Additionally, questions were asked about the inclusion of electric vehicle charging stations, the provision of a gate on the property, and the overall effect of the new development on the existing neighborhood character.