A primary focus of the meeting was the application from Vic and Property Management LLC for constructing an accessory building on Mission Street. This proposal included a two-car garage on the ground floor with an ADU on the second floor. The project sought variances for exceeding the maximum allowed height, width, and length for accessory buildings, as well as the overall lot coverage, which surpassed the permitted 55%. The height of the proposed structure was notably 24 feet 10 inches, above the 15-foot maximum stipulated in the zoning code.

Michael Ruben represented the applicant, emphasizing the alignment of the project with the February 2023 zoning ordinance amendment for ADUs. He highlighted discrepancies between the accessory building and ADU regulations, specifically regarding size and height limitations. Ruben argued that the larger footprint of 800 square feet allowed for ADUs conflicted with the smaller 576 square feet permitted for accessory buildings.

Victor Lana, the property owner, testified about the intent to convert the existing two-family dwelling into a single-family residence with a one-bedroom apartment above the garage. Lana assured the board that the necessary arrangements had been made for the current tenants, including the former owner, to remain on the property. He also addressed parking concerns, explaining that while the paved area in the rear yard would be reduced, the number of vehicles on the property would remain largely unchanged.

The board discussed the necessity of variances for the proposed dimensions, noting the inconsistency in the zoning code’s presentation. Conflicting specifications allowed for a maximum of 800 square feet for ADUs but imposed a 24-foot limit in any direction. Questions about the hardship justifying these variances were raised, but the discussion shifted to the introduction of expert witnesses.

Mr. Mleta, an architect and planner, provided detailed testimony on the design and compliance aspects of the project. He confirmed that the addition aimed to integrate seamlessly with the existing structure, using matching materials and colors, and included a balcony accessible only from the master bedroom. The ADU was designed to meet the client’s needs for garage space and living quarters, with 676 square feet of living area and compliance with setback regulations.

Concerns about the balcony’s size, bathroom adequacy, and the retention of chimneys were addressed. Mleta explained that modern heating technology rendered chimneys unnecessary, and the attic space was unsuitable for living purposes due to its steep and narrow stairwell. The planning office’s questions about handicap accessibility were also discussed, with mentions of installing a chairlift to accommodate accessibility needs.

A member questioned the hardship justification. The potential benefits of reducing lot coverage by incorporating two dwelling units within the main house were also considered.

The public comments segment featured insights from William Scott of the Montclair Housing Commission. Scott supported the application, citing the ADU’s potential to add to the neighborhood’s character while accommodating families who wished to remain in the community. He noted that the ADU represented a modest development opportunity benefiting the neighborhood, particularly for seniors and low-income residents.

The meeting also touched on broader issues, including the affordability of housing and the impact of variances on neighborhood character. Concerns about the high monthly rents, ranging from $3,850 to $6,100 per unit, and property sales prices, such as the $2.6 million sale of 69 and Mission Street, were raised. The ongoing issue of tree removal policies was discussed, with suggestions for implementing fines to deter unnecessary clearances.

Due to the absence of two anticipated board members, the meeting was adjourned and rescheduled for October 16, with no further notice required. The board emphasized the need for clear documentation and transparency to avoid misleading impressions of their operations. The importance of tree coverage in maintaining the town’s character was also acknowledged, with discussions about more robust regulations to prevent applicants from circumventing tree preservation intentions.