The board’s most issue revolved around the redevelopment plan’s parking and traffic strategies. Members expressed skepticism about the proposal’s ability to accommodate the increased demand for parking. Concerns were raised that the development’s reliance on future phases to resolve parking shortages was impractical, especially since the current proposal included no parking spaces for new commercial units. Board members called for an independent study to gauge the development’s potential impact on traffic and parking, emphasizing the importance of understanding these factors for both residents and future businesses. One board member specifically noted the disingenuousness of depending on later phases to mitigate immediate parking deficiencies, warning that without adequate planning, the introduction of new residential units could exacerbate existing issues.

In addition to parking challenges, discussions highlighted the importance of maintaining pedestrian-friendly environments. The board considered the feasibility of establishing ingress and egress points that align with the downtown area’s needs, avoiding vehicle conflicts in pedestrian zones. The representative for the applicant reiterated that the redevelopment plan had undergone thorough vetting and that any alterations could potentially hinder the project’s objectives.

Traffic flow and the use of an outdated trip generation manual were other focal points. The board scrutinized the methodology used in traffic assessments, particularly the reliance on the 11th edition of the trip generation manual instead of the newly released 12th edition. Members questioned the relevance of older data, given evolving traffic patterns, especially post-pandemic. The board sought assurance that the assessments reflected current conditions and accounted for changes in commuting practices.

A notable point of contention arose around analyzing traffic impacts incrementally rather than in absolute numbers. This approach sparked debate about accurately forecasting traffic implications and whether the proposal adhered to previously approved plans. The need for comprehensive traffic studies to ensure informed decision-making was a recurring theme, with board members pushing for more data to address quality-of-life concerns for local residents.

The board’s deliberations also touched on the implications of the redevelopment for public transportation, with discussions about New Jersey Transit bus lines’ accessibility and capacity. This conversation connected to broader socio-economic considerations, questioning whether the development would accommodate lower-income individuals who might rely on public transit.

As discussions progressed, the board recognized the complexities of planning and managing parking and traffic while adhering to the redevelopment plan’s goals. The board ultimately decided to carry the application to the next meeting. They also voted to request a comprehensive study of traffic flow and parking in Union Center, highlighting a consensus on the necessity of additional data to guide future decisions.

In a continuation of the evening’s agenda, the board reviewed other applications, including an ordinance change to prohibit massage and body work services in certain zones. This change aimed to require future applications for such services to undergo board adjustment processes, a move intended to more stringently control their approval. The ordinance received unanimous support.

Additionally, the board addressed adjourned applications. Notably, the application for a property on Liberty Avenue, involving a redevelopment project of an old Bed Bath and Beyond building, was postponed due to the absence of a representative. This project was recognized for its potential significance, with hopes expressed for a smooth resumption at the next meeting.