Townhouse project at 95–99 Avenue draws questions over parking, density at Highlands Board of Adjustment hearing

An eight-unit townhouse development proposed for 95–99 Avenue (block 41, lot 13.01) prompted detailed testimony and questions at a Highlands Board of Adjustment hearing, where designers and the borough planner argued the project could spur renewal of a long-vacant parcel while residents and some board members pressed for clearer parking and public-space plans.

The applicants’ architect, identified in the transcript as Brian (transcript: "Brian, D E R Z I N S A"), described updated site drawings and design changes meant to address earlier concerns. He told the board the ground floor would be non-habitable because the site sits in a flood-prone area, and that the lower level is intended for parking and storage. "The depth is 36 ft," Brian said when explaining the garage and driveway dimensions and how two cars could be accommodated front-to-back.

David G. Roberts, principal of BG Roberts Planning & Design, framed the project in a broader planning context, citing the borough’s master-plan goals and a long-term redevelopment strategy for Bay Avenue. Roberts told the board that infill residential development can help concentrate retail by increasing nearby households — "retail follows the rooftops," he said — and argued the parcel’s three-street frontages make townhouse layout and internalized parking practical for the block.

The technical record included a traffic memo that relied on the state residential site-improvement standards and the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual. The memo estimated roughly 47 vehicle trips per day from eight townhouse units, with a weekday AM peak of about two entering and four exiting trips and a PM peak of about three entering and three exiting trips.

Several residents and public commenters said the project, as presented, would increase parking pressure on narrow Spring Street and could undermine the borough’s Central Business District (CBD) goals if ground-floor commercial options are foreclosed. Michael Goione, who identified himself during public comment, said the design "fills virtually the entire property" and emphasized the lack of private green space for families, saying "there's absolutely no green area anywhere." Other speakers warned about trash-collection logistics, driveway conflicts and the project's density versus adjacent development.

Board members asked detailed questions about setbacks, how driveway parking would be counted under local rules, and whether rooftop HVAC placement and screened mechanical areas were adequately addressed in revised drawings. The planner and designer acknowledged trade-offs driven by flood-zone constraints, noting that retail at grade would face additional regulatory and construction burdens to be floodproofed.

On procedural items the board handled several routine votes recorded in the transcript: the board approved Resolution LUB-2020-05 (a separate minor-subdivision/sign matter for 193–195 Avenue) and approved minutes for a prior meeting. The transcript does not record a final vote on the 95–99 Avenue application; at the close of the available record the hearing remained in the question-and-answer and deliberation stage.

What happens next: board members signaled interest in additional detail and possible conditions — for example, a clearer trash/collection plan, parking mitigation measures and precise site drawings — before granting any use variances. No final decision on variances or approvals appears in the transcript provided.

The hearing illustrates the recurring local tension between encouraging redevelopment on long-vacant parcels and protecting neighborhood circulation, parking and the formal objectives of the borough's CBD plan. The board's consideration is likely to continue once applicants submit the supplemental materials requested during the hearing.