0:28The most notable development emerged from the River Crest Cabana Club Redevelopment proposal, which aims to introduce age-restricted residential townhomes in the R10 residential zone. The board was presented with a plans for 16 units across four structures, including three affordable housing units. This proposal aligns with the township’s obligations to provide affordable housing and offers additional amenities such as electric vehicle charging stations and improved pedestrian access. The presentation by Mr. Clarken emphasized maintaining the low-density character of the area while enhancing land use through the development of underutilized parcels.

During the discussions, Councilwoman Kahill raised concerns about enforcing age restrictions, citing past compliance issues in similar projects. The mayor acknowledged these concerns and suggested that specific conditions be set during the site plan review process to avoid future complications. The board unanimously approved the proposal after no public comments were raised, and a resolution was passed to recommend the adoption of the Redevelopment plan.

In addition to the River Crest proposal, the board examined a subdivision application from Victor LRN Properties LLC for a property on Normandy Drive. The applicant sought approval to subdivide the existing parcel into two lots, each featuring a single-family dwelling. Adjustments to the architectural plans were made following the board’s concerns, including reducing building coverage and modifying the design to avoid issues related to potential illegal two-family use.

43:21The board scrutinized the need for variances related to lot size, width, depth, setbacks, and frontage. The irregular triangular shape of the lots posed challenges, with the planner asserting that compliance with standard requirements was difficult due to these unique characteristics. The proposed Lot B was approximately 4,000 square feet under the required minimum for the zone but was consistent with neighboring properties. Similarly, the proposed lot width of 83.5 feet, while below the required 100 feet, was argued to have a negligible visual impact.

The discussion also covered technical variances, such as a front yard setback for a covered porch and a lot frontage requirement on Bristol Road. The applicant’s representative contended that these variances were justified under the C2 criteria of the municipal land use law. The proposal included a dedication of right-of-way to address a property boundary encroachment.

A board member expressed skepticism about the assertion of a C1 hardship. However, the applicant’s representative emphasized the unique lot shape and the benefits of the proposal, which eventually led to a motion to approve the subdivision. The board’s roll call vote resulted in unanimous approval, with acknowledgment of the applicant’s efforts to address previous concerns.