The application by Brian and Cecilia Matthews generated discussion, primarily due to the variance request that would increase their property’s building coverage from the permissible 25% to 33.06%. The Matthews, who have owned the property for 25 years, proposed a backyard renovation aiming to improve privacy and functionality. This project includes a pool, a detached garage, and a cabana, all designed with the intent of creating a private retreat within their property.

Architect Mary Hearn, representing the Matthews, provided detailed testimony about the proposed enhancements, focusing on the use of semi-pervious materials to adhere to coverage regulations. The design featured a six-foot high fence for privacy and incorporated semi-pervious paving to complement the green space while complying with local zoning laws. The architect emphasized the aesthetic intent of the project, highlighting the symmetrical design and the Matthews’ long-standing connection to the community.

However, the board expressed concerns about the impervious coverage calculations, especially regarding the use of grass strips and stabilized grass in driveway areas. The board debated the classification of these surfaces, which impact the overall coverage calculations. The current ordinance counts grass strips as 100% impervious, a point of contention highlighted during the discussions. This discrepancy prompted a call for ordinance reassessment to ensure clarity and prevent potential loopholes in future applications.

The board also addressed the proposed cabana, a structure intended to provide shade and outdoor cooking facilities. While the cabana did not require a variance, it sparked debate over its classification and the potential for a garage to be built without variance. The board clarified that the cabana must not be used as a dwelling unit, and a waiver for this deed restriction was requested due to its intended use.

Community members voiced their support for the Matthews’ application during the public comment period, with sentiments largely favoring the project. However, concerns about privacy due to nearby developments were also raised. Residents lamented the loss of privacy caused by new constructions and expressed a desire for the board to consider these impacts when granting approvals. The meetings highlighted the ongoing tension between development and maintaining community character.

Despite these concerns, the board unanimously approved the Matthews’ application, citing the minimal impact of the proposed changes relative to surrounding properties. The board emphasized the applicant’s compliance with all commitments made during the meeting and required necessary reviews by the borough engineer.

In addition to the Matthews’ application, the meeting addressed another proposal from Donald and Patricia Genty for a variance related to driveway extension. The Genty’s property, located at 616 16th Avenue, sought to extend the driveway for improved safety and circulation. This application involved a variance for a one-foot buffer, as the extension would reach the property line without the required buffer. The board discussed the implications on street parking and pedestrian traffic, ultimately approving the application after confirming the minimal impact on the neighborhood.