The primary focus of the meeting was the variance application for an inground pool on Poppy Place, a property with a lot size of 25,145 square feet, compared to the R2 zone’s requirement of 45,000 square feet. The board deliberated on the complexities posed by the property’s size and the implications of zoning laws, which required a variance due to the increased impervious coverage from 24.3% to 27.2%. The applicant, represented by Frederick Zelli, argued that the undersized nature of the lot presented a hardship, as the impervious coverage would only be 15.5% if the lot were compliant. The board’s approval of the variance came after thorough discussions on the necessity of the pool for the applicant’s three children and the lack of any required tree removal.

Concerns about the property’s topography were also addressed, particularly regarding the “dramatic drop-off” at the proposed pool site. The board considered potential settling issues and consulted with an engineer, Mr. Cannon, for expert testimony on topographical considerations. The discussion extended to the encroachment of a fence onto an adjacent lot, which was clarified to involve common land owned by an association, rather than private property. The board decided not to endorse the fence’s current placement but deferred the issue to be addressed privately if necessary.

Further discussions at the meeting highlighted broader regulatory challenges in Long Hill, particularly the impact of zoning regulations on homeowners with non-conforming lots. The board expressed frustration over the contradictions in allowing smaller lots due to cluster development standards while subsequently deeming them non-conforming. This situation was exemplified by the applicant’s need to seek variances for the pool. The conversation underscored the necessity of revisiting zoning ordinances to align them better with the realities of existing neighborhoods and alleviate the burden on homeowners seeking to make minor improvements.

The meeting also touched on the topic of accessory dwelling units, or mother-in-law apartments, which have gained interest post-pandemic as living situations evolve. The board acknowledged the potential for misuse if not properly regulated but also recognized the need to accommodate changing housing needs. Discussions included the possibility of revising regulations to allow these units to remain legal after the original owner sells the property, balancing flexibility with regulatory compliance.

Another point of discussion was the current setback requirements for generators, with the board questioning the practicality of the ten-foot setback from the principal building. Many participants noted that most generator installations do not comply with this requirement. The board considered aligning generator regulations with those for sheds to simplify compliance and address aesthetic concerns through landscaping or screening.

The meeting concluded with a broader reflection on the need for clarity in zoning definitions and the challenges faced by homeowners due to outdated language in the current ordinance. The board emphasized the importance of establishing standardized property classifications and addressing inconsistencies in regulations, particularly for corner lots and unusual property shapes. Participants expressed a desire to refine the language concerning modifications within zoning regulations to provide a clearer framework for homeowners and reduce ambiguity in enforcement.