A critical focal point of the meeting was the fire safety strategy for the proposed multifamily building. There were detailed deliberations over the building’s design, specifically regarding the provision of adequate access for fire department vehicles and the installation of a comprehensive sprinkler system. A fire safety expert presented testimony in response to concerns outlined by Captain Guzman, focusing on the necessity for adequate clearance in covered parking areas and the types of sprinkler systems to be implemented. The expert recommended upgrading to a full NFPA 13 sprinkler system, which offers more extensive coverage compared to the originally planned NFPA 13R system. This suggestion came in light of past fire incidents where insufficient sprinkler coverage led to significant damage.

Additionally, the meeting highlighted the importance of firefighter safety when accessing building roofs during emergencies. This included discussions on the installation of a parapet wall for added protection and the use of interior stair towers for safer roof access, as opposed to relying solely on external ladders. The board also examined the need for underground utility lines, weighing the benefits against logistical challenges. Despite differing opinions, the consensus leaned towards maintaining above-ground lines, considering the fire department’s ability to maneuver and access the site effectively.

The conversation also covered the possibility of structural collapse during a fire and the inclusion of measures to mitigate such risks. Public input on this topic was significant, with members expressing concerns based on past incidents. The expert emphasized the robustness of the proposed building’s design and fire safety systems, reassuring attendees that the likelihood of collapse under normal fire conditions is minimal.

Beyond fire safety, the board scrutinized the project’s stormwater management system, a concern given the increase in impervious surface coverage from 13.6% to 45.2%. The developer proposed a subsurface detention facility to handle runoff, promising that peak flow rates would not exceed pre-development levels. This assertion was met with technical questions from board members and the public, focusing on the system’s capacity to manage extreme weather events and its compliance with updated New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requirements.

Parking arrangements were another point of contention. The proposed design includes 20 parking spaces for 11 units, which raised questions about sufficiency for residents and guests. While the design adheres to Residential Site Improvement Standards (RSIS), practical concerns about visitor accommodation were not fully resolved during the meeting.

The board also touched on architectural aspects, including the adequacy of the proposed one-bedroom units, which some felt were too small for permanent residence. The architect defended the design as suitable for its intended purpose, detailing amenities and structural features, such as a flat roof with potential for both internal and external drainage systems.