The meeting’s central topic revolved around a minor subdivision application that would merge three lots into two, altering the local landscape. The application included a variance for a shed exceeding the maximum permitted size and the elimination of an 8.9-foot setback, leading to the creation of two split-zoned lots. The board’s conditions for approval stipulated that the applicant must request the township committee to consider rezoning the rear portions of both lots to be consistent with the Long Hill master plan. A notable detail of this approval was the board’s directive that the approximately 500-square-foot detached masonry building on one of the proposed lots would not be converted into livable space and would not include kitchen or bathroom facilities. The shed, infringing the setback line by 8.9 feet, was ordered to be relocated to a conforming position at least 10 feet from the setback line. Furthermore, the existing easement on the proposed lot would be vacated.

Delving into the specifics, the board examined an application involving properties on Pine Street. The applicant’s representative and engineer detailed the current state of the parcels and their proposed adjustments, which included merging landlocked parcels and relocating sheds. The engineer’s presentation outlined the layout and features of the subdivision, focusing on the details of the properties and the proposed adjustments. This discussion also included references to specific dates and revisions of the plans presented. Concerns were raised by board professionals about a wire fence extending into a neighboring lot, and clarity was requested.

The meeting took a substantial turn when discussing the construction of a Masonite building estimated to be between 400 and 500 square feet. The board concentrated on a specific shed, around 149 square feet, deliberating whether it necessitated a variance under the old ordinance. The lot line adjustment in question aimed to eliminate Lot 15 and extend the existing lot line between Lots 44 and 50, an adjustment that would not create additional non-conformities. In the zoning discussion, there was a preference for both lots to be designated R4 to match the surrounding properties. The board reviewed comments and stipulations from the planning review, addressing minor revisions to the plan and the vacating of an existing easement. Additionally, the board discussed the condition of the Masonite building and stipulated that it must not be used as a residence.

Beyond property and zoning matters, the board discussed updates on open space activities, with a focus on developing trails in the Greenways and assessing town-owned properties. The ordinance committee’s primary objective was to update the existing zoning map. An email would be sent to lay out all recommendations from the master plan and how to integrate those into the ordinance. Meanwhile, the site plan review committee reported to be in a waiting phase, anticipating future proposals and consulting with the zoning officer regarding standard operating procedures.

The board also addressed administrative matters, reminding members to complete their financial disclosures and mentioning human resources training for committeemen and chairmen, emphasizing the importance of completing these tasks by the end of April.