The proposed installation of an in-ground pool on ID Avenue sparked considerable debate as the applicant requested variances for setbacks. The plan sought to position the pool eight feet from the side property line and four feet from a garage, deviating from the required ten-foot setbacks in both cases. The applicant, a pool business owner, assured they would oversee the installation themselves. Despite this, board members raised concerns about the pool’s proximity to the garage and the potential impact on the neighboring property, particularly highlighting the neighbor’s objection.

Edward Straussy, residing on Ottawa Avenue, voiced strong opposition, citing the small size of the properties and suggesting the demolition of the garage to meet setback requirements. Straussy stated, “They want to put in a 10 by 25 ft pool in their yard,” underscoring space limitations. The board acknowledged his concerns and discussed potential compromises, such as adjusting the pool’s size and orientation to comply with zoning regulations while accommodating the applicant’s needs. However, the applicant expressed reservations about modifying the pool dimensions due to possible access issues to the garage.

The board also addressed the need for a fence around the pool, confirming that the applicant would work with the zoning officer to ensure compliance. The applicant planned for a six-foot fence, although this was not part of the variance application. The debate continued over pool dimensions and variances, with the board emphasizing the necessity for further deliberation to balance the applicant’s building rights with the neighbor’s concerns regarding property line encroachment. The application was ultimately carried over to the next meeting, allowing time for the applicant to revise their plans based on feedback received.

Attention then shifted to the proposal for a truck maintenance facility on Journey Mill Road. This application involved changing the use of an existing building back to an auto service center, a use not permitted in the current zone, necessitating a D1 use variance. The applicant presented a detailed overview of the site, highlighting no planned structural changes aside from replacing signage and expanding the number of parking spaces to accommodate anticipated demand for truck services.

The board scrutinized the business model, including operational logistics, traffic volume, and retail operations planned for the site. The applicant reassured that while repairs could vary in duration, the volume of traffic was expected to be minimal, with many customers preferring local services over long commutes to facilities in Newark. The historical context of the property, used for various purposes including a trucking business, was emphasized to justify the variance request.

The applicant’s planner argued that the proposed operation would be less intense than the previous uses, focusing solely on suspension repairs without activities like long-term parking or extensive operational hours. No changes to the building were planned, and the requested variances pertained to front yard parking and the striping of parking spaces. The proposal aligned with existing industrial uses in the area, surrounded by wetlands and open space.

Throughout the discussion, the board sought clarity on operational practices, historical usage, and zoning compliance. The applicant referenced municipal land use law goals to justify the application, emphasizing its potential benefits to the neighborhood, local employment, and tax revenue. The proposal included commitments to comply with fire safety codes and enhance the site’s landscaping.

Questions arose about the handling of old parts, noise levels, and compliance with parking requirements. The applicant provided assurances regarding the recycling of parts, minimal noise disturbances, and signage to ensure proper vehicle flow. Despite not meeting the ordinance requirement for parking spaces, the applicant argued that actual demand would be lower than calculated.

The public portion of the meeting saw no comments, and the board moved to approve the truck facility application, with affirmative votes from several members. Resolutions were also passed for other properties, including the approval of a resolution on Roma Street and the denial of one on Price Street.