The board’s agenda included a presentation by Irena Elar from W Garten Law Firm on behalf of the applicant, H Lane Phase 2 LLC, which seeks to fulfill the township’s third-round affordable housing obligations. The proposed development includes a mix of single-family homes, row townhouses, stacked townhouse units, mixed-use buildings, and retail space, with amenities such as pickleball courts, tot lots, and a dog run. Notably, the project proposes converting an existing tower into residential units and offers a density bonus tied to the inclusion of Main Street commercial space.

Board members engaged in a review of the project, questioning the applicant’s representatives on traffic impact studies, access points, and the design’s conformity with Town Center zoning requirements. Particular attention was paid to the distribution of affordable and market-rate units, with Dwan Cork, a board member, inquiring about the location of affordable housing within the development. In response, Ron Allach, the director of engineering and development for Eminem, clarified that the affordable units would be interspersed among the mixed-use buildings and a standalone apartment building.

The board’s planner, Naika A.B., emphasized the importance of architectural details and the appearance of retail spaces, expressing a firm stance against having full front retail with signage. The discussion also touched on technicalities within the Town Center Zone ordinance and the town’s influence on market rate bedroom distributions, highlighting a need for clear communication between the board’s expectations and the development proposal.

Residents voiced concerns over the project’s traffic impact, particularly on Hos Lane, and the potential strain on local schools and taxes. Seckler, a professional traffic operations engineer, presented the circulation and access plan, assuring that the design minimizes cut-through traffic and that a detailed traffic impact study would accompany the preliminary site plan submission.

Despite these assurances, there remained questions about the discrepancy between the estimated number of trips reported to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the actual number anticipated. The board also discussed the impact on local roadways, pedestrian and bike-friendly infrastructure requirements, and the phased development approach’s implications. Christine Nazaro, an expert witness, confirmed the applicant’s compliance with the GDP requirements, including dwelling units, non-residential floor space, and residential density.

The board deliberated over the General Development Plan (GDP) for the proposed development, which adheres to the Piscataway ordinance and municipal land use law. The GDP outlines the types, density, and parameters of the development, with affordable housing provided on-site. Detailed inquiries were made about the GDP components, including open space maintenance, public services, and the area’s potential impact.