At the center of discussions was a property seeking to make substantial modifications, including the contentious use variance. This variance would allow for two apartments to be situated in a building that, according to existing zoning regulations, should contain only one. The board deliberated on the appropriateness of the property for the expansion, with particular concerns voiced regarding the size and layout of the proposed two-bedroom apartments.

Further discussions revolved around a comprehensive presentation by the applicant’s representatives, which detailed revisions to architectural plans for a property on Lamington Road. These changes came as a result of feedback from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and included alterations such as the removal of an overly vibrant blue color, the implementation of high-quality siding, and the addition of decorative raised planters with seasonal flowers to enhance the property’s aesthetic appeal. Board members engaged with the applicants, seeking clarifications on the use of specific materials and the functionality of design elements, such as a slab and the proposed color scheme.

The aesthetic continuity between the main building and its ancillary structures was a recurring theme, with the board requesting that the proposed shed align with the overall property design. This entailed discussions about the shed’s dimensions, appearance, and architectural consistency, including the use of matching siding, trim, and shingles. The preference for solid panel doors and limited windows was emphasized, both for security purposes and to ensure that the shed did not detract from the property’s visual harmony.

The conversation also extended to the property’s exterior features, touching on the practicalities of driveway curbing, sidewalk materials, and the positioning of planters. With varying opinions on the necessity and aesthetics of these features, the board considered county standards for Right of Way and township curbing guidelines. A consensus emerged around the potential removal of planters, while the appropriateness of vinyl siding and curbing standards remained points of contention.

A new set of revised plans was also introduced by a witness, addressing alterations to parking arrangements, refuse storage, and proposed decking. This spurred a multifaceted debate that touched on stormwater management, the use of bump stops in parking areas instead of traditional curbing, and the nuances of the landscaping and lighting plans. Concerns about excessive illumination led to a suggestion for further refinement to the lighting plan to meet compliance requirements.

The board’s approval of the dual apartment variance is poised to set a precedent for future applications.