A prominent focus of the meeting was the ongoing tax appeal filed by the property owners, which challenged the assessed value of the property in State Tax Court. The appeal sparked debate among board members, who expressed concerns about the implications of the current “Payment in Lieu of Taxes” (PILOT) agreement. The agreement, which lacks a land tax component, was criticized for potentially affecting local school funding. A board member articulated frustration over the recurrent approvals granted by the board without addressing these financial concerns adequately. They emphasized the importance of applicants paying a land tax and questioned the rationale behind advancing the application before resolving the tax issues associated with the redevelopment agreement.

The tax appeal’s relevance to the board’s review process was debated, with the conclusion that it fell outside the planning board’s jurisdiction, as financial negotiations are conducted separately by the township council and the developer. Despite this, the board recognized the need for clarity and decided to carry the application to the next meeting. This decision allows for further discussions between the applicant and township officials concerning the tax situation.

Alongside the tax appeal discussions, the board examined the proposed modifications to Building C within the development. The applicant sought various variances, including adjustments to outdoor dining structures, additional signage, and changes to parking configurations. The request for permanent canopies over outdoor dining areas was notable, as it deviated from the original plans which utilized temporary structures like umbrellas. The board expressed concerns that these changes might set a precedent for other developments in the area.

The applicant’s architect presented architectural plans that included increased electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and alterations to the building’s design, such as a breezeway in Building C to improve visual separation. The architect also confirmed compliance with the redevelopment plan’s requirements, though variances for signage were necessary due to the proposed larger sizes exceeding established limits. The board expressed interest in ensuring that the signage complied with area requirements, particularly for those facing Route 10.

Traffic and parking were other critical aspects of the meeting. The applicant’s traffic engineer presented a shared parking model, asserting that despite changes in retail square footage, parking remained adequate with no reduction in spaces. The traffic generation calculations were updated. The board addressed concerns about pedestrian safety, specifically regarding access to additional parking lots and crosswalk design.

The meeting also covered the aesthetic and functional elements of the proposed development. The applicant’s planner discussed the project’s alignment with the original vision for a pedestrian-friendly environment and the rationale for seeking variances. The planner underscored the intent to create a vibrant, community-oriented space, balancing commercial viability with neighborhood considerations.