The Lakewood Zoning Board dealt with several major development applications at its meeting Monday night, including a heavily attended Cross Street proposal that was ultimately tabled following significant public concern from nearby senior residents.

During the public comment portion, several residents expressed frustration that they felt rushed while attempting to raise concerns about safety, privacy, traffic, and other quality-of-life issues connected to pending development applications.

The most closely watched application was a proposal by 60 Cross Street, LLC for a large development at 560 Cross Street, near the entrance to Eagle Ridge. The application calls for a 71-lot subdivision, including 66 residential duplex lots, three stormwater lots, one retail/office lot, and a shul.

A large group of senior residents attended the meeting to voice concerns about the potential impact of the project on the surrounding area. Following an extended back-and-forth discussion, the application was tabled. It is expected to return to the board at its July 6 meeting.

The board also approved an application on Prospect Street after the developer agreed to scale back the project. The application, submitted by SK Prospect Cross Lakewood, LLC, originally called for eight duplexes, totaling 16 units. Under the revised plan, the project was reduced to 14 units.

As part of the approval, the developer agreed to reserve the eliminated building site for a future shul, with 11 parking spaces. The board also made the approval conditional on the shul being built before the final duplex can receive a certificate of occupancy.

Neighbors had raised privacy concerns, noting that the new development backs onto an existing residential community. In response, the applicant agreed to plant 77 Green Giant trees along the property line. The homeowners association will be responsible for maintaining and irrigating the trees for two years.

In another approval, the board gave the green light to an application off Route 70, where the developer plans to construct four apartment buildings containing a total of 35 two-bedroom units.

During that hearing, a resident questioned why the project was not being restricted to senior housing, citing language in the township master plan and raising concerns about the suitability of family housing along a busy highway corridor. The board attorney responded that the project did not require a variance from the relevant master plan provisions.