The most notable item on the board’s agenda was the subdivision application from Chickle LLC for properties located at 000 and Cleveland Avenue. The application, presented by attorney David Himlman, sought approval to subdivide and combine lots to facilitate the construction of a two-story single-family dwelling. The properties, situated within an R5 single-family residential district, already met several zoning requirements, but required variances for lot area, width, front yard space, and building coverage.

Architect Steven Considine detailed the proposed structure, noting its modern contemporary style and height compliance. However, the discussion was dominated by the drainage issues identified by the board engineer. The property, described as relatively flat, experiences water pooling at a corner due to street topography and the absence of a stormwater management system. Although the applicant was advised to install a catch basin to alleviate this, concerns were raised about the feasibility and maintenance responsibility for a private client managing such a system.

This discussion prompted a broader debate on drainage solutions, with the applicant reluctant to undertake the installation of a catch basin due to potential clogging and flooding risks. The board’s engineer emphasized the need for effective drainage measures, but no resolution was reached.

Concurrently, the board engaged in a preliminary investigation study for a redevelopment area at the Mini Mall Drive intersection of Ernston Road. Vina Sawad from VMS Planning LLC outlined the study, which covers 17 parcels and aims to facilitate voluntary redevelopment. The area, hindered by limited access to major roads, has seen underutilization and vacancy, prompting the borough to consider a non-condemnation redevelopment plan.

Sawad highlighted the challenges facing the area, including landlocked parcels and poor visibility for businesses. The redevelopment plan proposes a mix of retail, commercial, and residential uses to enhance economic growth. Despite concerns from residents about potential displacement, the board assured that the redevelopment plan does not involve eminent domain.

Public comments during the meeting reflected mixed reactions. A resident expressed concern over existing site conditions, questioning the landlord’s role in maintaining the property. Another resident supported redevelopment, citing personal experiences with unsafe conditions in the area. The board clarified that the redevelopment designation aims to encourage property improvements rather than force tenant removal.

In addition to these major topics, the board considered landscaping and fencing plans on the proposed subdivision’s corner lot, with initial plans for seeding and grassing the lawn. Future landscaping decisions would depend on the client’s preferences, raising considerations about privacy and aesthetic value for the neighborhood.