The appeal of 5038 Avenue LLC, currently pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey, initiated the board’s meeting, followed by an executive session. Subsequent to the executive session, the board attended to administrative tasks, including the adoption of resolutions for various board positions for the year 2024.

The session’s most detailed evaluation concerned the application of 211 Dit Avenue by Mammoth Investment Partners. Architect Mr. Feldman presented the revised plans for the proposed home, which included a reduction in size, fewer bedrooms, and an increase in backyard space. This revision was in response to previous concerns raised by the board. Despite these changes, the board’s planner and engineer confirmed that the project still necessitated the same variances as before. A discussion about the habitable attic space followed, with Mr. Feldman clarifying its potential use for storage or recreation, leading to a consensus among the board members that the space was permissible for various uses, including as a bedroom.

Another topic at the meeting was the renovation plans for a different property, where the size of the driveway and the building’s dimensions were scrutinized. Engineer Charles Surmont provided details about the driveway design, which included 230-inch wide strips and a 33-inch island designed to aid in stormwater storage. Surmont acknowledged a miscalculation in the building coverage due to a miscommunication about the second-floor overhang. This miscalculation sparked a debate on whether the development should be classified as minor or major, with the focus being on the stormwater management thresholds. The board also debated the driveway width and material, with Surmont recommending concrete and suggesting the grass island remain as lawn. Additionally, there was a discussion about the building’s positioning on the lot and the side setbacks, with Surmont proposing slightly adjusted measurements.

The stormwater drainage plan for a property was another point of discussion, with the board expressing concerns about the path from the front door to the driveway and the absence of a sidewalk. The board deliberated on whether the drainage plan needed to be part of the resolution and decided to proceed with the testimony provided by the homeowner.

Furthermore, the board heard testimony from James W. Higgins, a licensed planner, who discussed the hardship case presented by the property’s size and the variances needed for construction. Higgins emphasized the undersized nature of the lot and argued that the proposed building was in line with the surrounding area. His plansning analysis addressed the specific variances needed and the suitability of the proposed construction for the location.

The board also admitted into evidence a letter from the homeowner offering to sell the property to neighboring lots. After opening the floor for public comments and receiving none, the board proceeded to approve the application with conditions related to stormwater management and the building structure.