The board’s approval followed a series of discussions and testimonies concerning the proposed community residences. The most significant concern from local residents centered around the Liberty Avenue Redevelopment and its referral to the township committee, which received unanimous approval. Residents expressed worries about potential environmental impact, increased traffic, and safety considerations, with particular emphasis on the size of the proposed residences in relation to existing homes in the area.

Significantly, the meeting delved into a presentation by the executive director of Community Access Unlimited, who sought minor relief for setbacks and steep slopes in connection with a community residence for persons with developmental disabilities. During the session, residents raised multiple queries, including parking for staff, sound buffering with the Garden State Parkway, and the removal of trees for site work. The engineer made note of revisions to the initial plans, such as the elimination of the front yard fence and the addition of landscaping to address some of these concerns.

A contentious moment arose during the public comments segment when a resident accused a lawyer of claiming that the state of New Jersey had already allocated funds to the Union board, thereby discouraging public attendance. The lawyer denied these allegations, and the chair directed the resident to focus questions on the witness rather than the lawyer.

Residents also voiced concerns over the environmental impact of the development, with specific reference to wildlife, particularly deer, and the adequacy of plans to replace trees and mitigate excessive runoff. Despite explanations from the project’s engineer regarding grading, drainage, and the defensive positioning of the driveway, residents remained skeptical.

Moreover, the meeting transcripts reveal a Q&A session where residents probed the necessity of a 46,000-square-foot residence to house five individuals. The engineer responded that the project was seeking relief for setback and steep slope, complying with one-family home requirements. Residents also expressed frustration over community outreach, feeling uninformed about prior meetings and the proposed development’s impact.

During the meeting, the professional planner, Nicholas Graviano, was called to testify, offering his expertise and asserting that the requested variances for the community residence were justified. Graviano cited municipal land use law and the specific needs of individuals with mobility challenges as reasons for the variances. Despite the planner’s rationale, the public’s skepticism persisted regarding the project’s potential impact on the neighborhood, its size, and future expansion plans.

The board also addressed another application for a property on Earl Street, which prompted discussions about the design and impact of the proposed construction on neighboring properties. Concerns were raised about the placement of houses, the need for retaining walls, and discrepancies in the number of parking spaces between applications.