The most prominent topic was the River Crest redevelopment proposal. A planner presented findings on Block 7305 Lots 1901, 20, and 21, indicating that the area, including the River Crest Cabana Club, was suitable for redevelopment. The club, which faces declining membership and structural issues, is surrounded by residential properties and community facilities. The planner highlighted deficiencies such as outdated structures, lack of ADA accessibility, and inadequate facilities that fail to meet current health and safety standards. Rising maintenance costs and non-compliance with modern building codes were cited as contributing factors to the club’s potential closure by the end of the 2025 swimming season.

Given these conditions, the board unanimously approved the area’s designation for redevelopment, which allows for a redevelopment plan to be devised. The proposal aims to consolidate the fragmented ownership of the lots, currently split between the township and the Cabana Club, to streamline redevelopment efforts. The planner emphasized the potential for productive land use and smart growth.

The board also discussed Snack Innovations’ request to amend prior approvals for its facility on Eel Road. The company sought a variance to accommodate a 2,984 square foot mezzanine added without approval. The attorney for Snack Innovations clarified the need for the mezzanine due to a miscommunication between project engineers and architects. After deliberation, the board approved the variance, allowing the company to maintain compliance with parking requirements while continuing operations.

Another agenda item involved LRN Properties LLC’s application for a minor subdivision and bulk variances on Normandy Drive. The proposal included renovating an existing home and constructing a new single-family home on a subdivided lot. The site engineer plans for the new homes, emphasizing improvements like sidewalks, curbs, and road widening. However, the proposal faced scrutiny over the need for multiple variances, particularly regarding lot size and coverage. Board members expressed concerns about the proposed lot coverage exceeding township regulations and urged the applicant to reconsider the design to better align with zoning requirements.

The meeting also addressed a long-standing residential property proposal that required extensive variances due to non-conforming conditions. The architect outlined plans for an addition to accommodate a large family, but board members questioned the scale of the proposal. Concerns centered on the excessive lot coverage and potential zoning violations, prompting suggestions to reduce the garage size and reconfigure the design. The board advised the applicant to explore modifications that could meet regulatory standards while still fulfilling family needs.