The application from Mark Shorhokian, who sought a variance for a deck addition, took center stage. The proposed deck would extend 71 feet from the property line, slightly infringing upon the 40-foot rear yard setback requirement by 4.29 feet. Shorhokian’s submission, though hand-drawn, was supported by a survey from 2013, which raised questions about its accuracy. One board member noted the importance of a final survey to verify dimensions post-construction.

The board’s scrutiny extended to stormwater management due to the deck’s classification as an impervious surface under borough code. The potential requirement for a seepage pit to manage stormwater was discussed, with the board considering waiving these requirements given the minimal nature of the project. The engineer explained that decks, despite their open structure, contribute to impervious coverage, prompting a broader conversation about whether regulations should be updated to provide more flexibility for homeowners.

Shorhokian had presented documentation, including a denial letter from the building inspector and proof of notification to neighbors and utilities, but the lack of a zoning table in his application was a sticking point. The absence of this information led to discussions about the necessity of having an architect revise the plans to include a zoning table. This table would ensure accurate property measurements and identify any other required variances, a step before final approval could be granted.

Privacy concerns were also a topic of discussion, as the deck’s elevation of approximately six feet off the ground could potentially allow views into neighboring properties. Shorhokian proposed enhancing landscaping with bushes and rocks to mitigate these concerns. Board members debated whether repositioning the deck could eliminate the need for a variance. However, Shorhokian explained that the land’s topography made alternative placements impractical.

The meeting revealed the challenges faced by properties that do not conform to standard zoning regulations, especially corner lots like Shorhokian’s, which lacked a traditional rear yard. The board acknowledged these unique challenges in their deliberations, understanding that the irregular shape of the lot and the existing home’s orientation complicated the zoning considerations.

In the end, a series of motions were made to approve Shorhokian’s application with specific conditions. These included the prompt provision of a zoning table and considerations related to stormwater management. One board member voiced reservations about adding impervious coverage without fully assessing its impact, but there was general consensus on waiving certain requirements, including the soil movement application, given the minimal nature of the proposed improvements.

The Planning Board’s discussions extended beyond this particular application, touching on the broader implications of borough regulations. Board members considered the fairness and practicality of current rules, especially concerning impervious surfaces, and suggested potential amendments to better accommodate residents’ needs while maintaining regulatory standards.

The requirement for clear, accurate documentation was emphasized, with board members agreeing that compliance and proper documentation were essential for facilitating construction and ensuring future adherence to zoning laws.