At the forefront of the meeting was the application concerning the construction project on Birch Lane, which was presented by the applicant’s engineer, Corey Vandervok. He provided a detailed explanation of the proposed soil movement and stormwater management systems necessary for the site, emphasizing that the design aimed to comply with existing zoning standards, thereby requiring no variances. Vandervok highlighted the complex nature of the project, detailing the importation of 736 cubic yards of soil and the installation of a stormwater management system designed to mitigate runoff effectively.

However, the discussion quickly shifted to the implications for adjacent properties, with board members and residents alike expressing concerns over potential drainage issues. Vandervok assured that the project’s design had been carefully crafted to prevent runoff from affecting neighboring properties, noting that the applicant would be responsible for any necessary remediation should issues arise during or after construction. This point was further reinforced during the public comment segment when a resident expressed apprehension about water runoff from the property behind her home. The board confirmed that any additional runoff would be addressed as part of the approval resolution, adhering to New Jersey’s stormwater statutes that mandate zero runoff increase.

Despite assurances from the board and the applicant’s representative, residents voiced concerns about the visibility of the presentation materials during the meeting, which they felt hindered their ability to fully comprehend the planned drainage systems. One resident noted the essential nature of visual aids in such discussions. The board acknowledged this oversight, admitting that they were unaccustomed to having an audience present and would consider such feedback for future meetings.

Tree removal was another point of contention during the meeting. Vandervok explained that certain trees on the property had been removed prior to the adoption of a new tree ordinance, which meant they were not subject to replacement requirements. However, four trees that qualified for replacement under the current regulations would be replanted as part of the project. This led to a broader discussion about the timing and necessity of the tree removal, with the board clarifying that stipulations for replacing the qualified trees were included in the current application.

The community’s concerns extended beyond drainage and tree removal to include issues of notification and transparency. A resident raised questions about the notification process for nearby residents regarding the construction and its associated permits, claiming they had not received any notice. The board explained that notices are typically sent to residents within 200 feet of the property line, and any oversight could be due to an error in the mailing list prepared by the tax department. The resident was advised to follow up with the board secretary to verify the mailing list and ensure proper notification.

As the meeting progressed, the board moved toward formalizing a resolution regarding the drainage conditions, emphasizing the importance of specifying the owner’s responsibility in the final document. The motion was seconded, and the board members voted in favor.

The meeting concluded with brief mentions of old and new business, although no updates were provided. One member took the opportunity to thank the board’s secretary for her assistance.