At the heart of the deliberations was the proposed garage, which sought several variances due to its size and placement on the property. Attorney Dan Oarn represented the applicant, arguing for a two-car garage design that would exceed both the allowed area and height restrictions, proposing 580 square feet and 17.8 feet, respectively. The garage would also require a D variance as it would be considered a second principal use on the residential lot, facing the street rather than the side as typically required.

Tammy Zach, the property owner, testified in support of the application, detailing the challenges her family faced with the current parking situation. She emphasized the practical necessity of the garage for vehicle protection and storage, assuring the board that the structure would not serve as living space. The absence of the project architect, due to a family emergency, led to some unanswered questions, particularly concerning the accuracy of the lot coverage calculations.

Board members expressed skepticism over the existing and proposed coverage percentages, which ranged from the original claim of 12% to a proposed increase to 18%, against an allowable 35%. The accuracy of these figures came under scrutiny, with one member questioning whether all impervious surfaces, such as raised patios and concrete walks, had been appropriately accounted for. This discrepancy remained unresolved, prompting the board to request further information to ensure compliance with borough regulations on impervious surface limits.

Further complicating the application were discussions around utilities and potential future uses of the garage. The proposed inclusion of electric utilities, mainly for an electric car, was deemed acceptable. However, the board expressed concerns about a previously suggested bathroom, which could imply potential occupancy. To mitigate this, the board considered the idea of a deed restriction to prevent any future conversion of the garage into a residential space.

The board deliberated on the visual impact of the proposed structure, with landscaping noted as a factor in minimizing its visibility from the street and neighboring properties. The proximity of the driveway to a nearby crosswalk was also discussed, with assurances given that sightlines and safety would not be compromised.

After thorough discussion, a motion was made to approve the application, conditional on several stipulations. These included removing the bathroom from the plans, adherence to any affordable housing regulations, and maintaining the landscaping to preserve the visual buffer. The board emphasized that any future changes to the application would require additional review and approval. The necessity of clear terms regarding the garage’s use was reiterated.