The main agenda item was the application for a minor subdivision on Pascack Road, represented by attorney Gary Zeric. The property, currently a single-family home on a 1.272-acre lot, was proposed to be divided into two lots. The northernmost lot would retain the existing house, while the southernmost would be newly created. The application required variances for lot frontage and side yard setbacks, with the proposed frontage measuring 99.74 feet instead of the required 100 feet, and a side yard of 7.89 feet where 15 feet is typically mandated. The council deliberated on these variances, acknowledging that while the combined side yards met zoning requirements, the individual variances did not pose significant negative impacts.

The council also discussed the engineering aspects of the property, including the need for sewer inspections to ensure that existing infrastructure remained within the proposed lot boundaries. Concerns were raised about the existing gravel driveway, which needed a turnaround to meet county requirements, and the presence of an above-ground storage tank, presumed to be for heating oil, which would remain. The council also addressed the absence of sidewalks on the property, ultimately granting a diminimus exception to avoid constructing sidewalks where none currently existed on either side of Pascack Road.

The council’s approval was contingent on several conditions, including compliance with recommendations from the police, fire, and ambulance services, as well as the tax assessor’s review of lot numbering. The application also required revisions to address mislabeled setbacks on the submitted plans.

Public comments were invited, although no audience members chose to speak at this stage. However, community concerns about environmental impacts and erosion were voiced later in the meeting by Nicholas Farfell, a neighboring homeowner who participated via video. Farfell recounted historical erosion issues linked to previous developments in the area and expressed fears that the current project might exacerbate these problems. He cited incidents of significant water runoff and a fallen 200-year-old tree as evidence of ongoing concerns. Despite assurances from council members that the development adhered to all required soil erosion and drainage measures, Farfell and other residents urged the council to consider broader community impacts.

The meeting also addressed a major soil permit application related to the development, which involved moving 2,922 cubic yards of soil. This triggered substantial fees and deposits, including an $87,000 refundable fee and a $73,050 fee based on the volume of soil moved. The council discussed the soil movement logistics, noting that the soil would be transported to a nearby location on Route 17, minimizing truck traffic and utilizing adjacent lots for fill. The council emphasized the importance of maintaining compliance with stormwater management regulations and discussed the adequacy of the proposed drainage system.

Council members expressed confidence in the project’s adherence to engineering standards, with assurances that all necessary soil testing had been conducted during the initial construction phase. The council acknowledged the potential need for additional stormwater management measures, such as expanding drainage pits or adding tanks, to accommodate future runoff.

The meeting concluded with the council approving the subdivision application with conditions, while also addressing administrative matters such as the approval of previous meeting minutes and the acknowledgment of council member Brian Murphy’s impending departure after a 16-year tenure. The council expressed gratitude for Murphy’s service and contributions to the community.