The application for a certificate of nonconformity was presented by Mark Leeman, an attorney from CSG Law, representing the applicant. The request centered on recognizing the garden apartment complex’s longstanding existence despite the property’s current zoning designation. Board members engaged in a debate over the adequacy of evidence presented to substantiate the claim that the complex predated the existing zoning ordinance. Concerns were raised regarding the lack of comprehensive evidence, with one board member noting, “the applicant knows they have no exhibits, no testimony, no nothing,” questioning how the board could confirm the structure’s age without sufficient documentation.

Despite the initial lack of documentation, Katherine Gregory, a professional planner, later provided testimony, indicating that the property had never been officially rezoned, likely due to its established presence. One board member expressed confidence in the applicant’s efforts, stating they felt the building appeared to have been constructed before the ordinance, a sentiment echoed by others acknowledging the lack of contrary evidence.

A significant aspect of the discussion involved clarifying the implications of granting the certificate of nonconformity. Concerns were raised about what this would mean for the current and future use of the property, particularly regarding potential developments or expansions. Legal counsel clarified that while the certificate would permit the existing use to continue, it would not allow for any expansion without further board approval, potentially requiring a more rigorous use variance process. This clarification was aimed at addressing public concerns about future changes to the property.

Throughout the discussion, board members emphasized the importance of transparency and ensuring the public understood the specifics of the application and the board’s considerations. Several members suggested providing a brief overview of the application to the public.

The board’s deliberation highlighted the complexities of establishing a clear understanding of the implications of the certificate of nonconformity for both the current owner and potential future buyers.

The meeting also touched on historical zoning issues, particularly focusing on a building constructed in 1940, originally a multifamily structure. Discussions included references to various tax maps illustrating changes in property sizes and zoning regulations over decades. The board struggled to locate zoning records, leading to confusion about when the zoning for the parcel was established. Frustrations were expressed over the inability to find these records, with suggestions that past floods or fires might have led to lost documentation.

Residents voiced their concerns during the meeting, with Jill Paul from Stephanie Gardens emphasizing the need for responsible ownership and maintenance of the building, while expressing concerns about the new ownership’s intentions. Another resident, Mike Vina, supported the application but objected to the board’s discussions about property improvements, insisting that these matters should be addressed separately from the certificate of nonconformity application.

As the meeting progressed, the board unanimously approved the motion to issue the certificate of nonconformity for the garden apartment complex. The board acknowledged the complexities of the situation, particularly around historical zoning records, and the potential need for improved communication and documentation in future applications.

In addition to the certificate of nonconformity, the board also addressed proposed amendments to the sign ordinance. The proposed changes included provisions for feathered advertisement flags and clarified existing ambiguities in the ordinance. Specific amendments included restrictions on flag display durations, size limits for political signs, and changes to facade signs and illuminated signage.

Lastly, public comments included concerns about affordable housing numbers, with one resident arguing that Garwood should reconsider its housing obligations based on a lack of vacant land. While the board acknowledged these points, they referenced an analysis provided by a planner that they believed countered the arguments presented.