One of the primary topics involved a property on Overhill Way, where residents have faced increased flooding due to recent modifications. A public comment session revealed significant frustration from a resident whose yard has been severely affected by water runoff following construction work on neighboring properties. Describing their yard as the “bottom of the teacup,” the resident detailed the challenges posed by the altered topography, which has led to water pooling and inadequate drainage. They presented photographic evidence of the flooding and highlighted ongoing issues with a sump pump that continuously operates to manage water levels.

The resident argued against the approval of a variance for the property in question, citing New Jersey statutes that require specific criteria to be met for hardship variances. They contended that the modifications had created their own hardship and lacked adherence to proper permit processes. The resident also criticized unauthorized tree removals and suggested that more modest changes, such as reducing the size of existing structures, could have mitigated the current problems.

The board examined the details of the application, with a focus on proposed solutions for the drainage issues. The plans included adjustments to impervious surfaces and the installation of a new stormwater management system, featuring dry wells to redirect runoff. Despite these proposals, the board and the public remained skeptical about their effectiveness, given the existing challenges and the potential for future complications.

Another application discussed involved the Kersh family at Riverbend Road, who sought a variance for a second-floor extension on their home. Their proposal included adding a master suite while maintaining the existing footprint of the house. The board inquired about various aspects of the project, including stormwater management and the status of existing non-conformities. The family assured the board that no trees would be removed and that the external appearance of the house would remain consistent with the current structure. The board approved the application unanimously, advising the family to coordinate with the zoning office to proceed with their plans.

The meeting also addressed an application from the Gil Bowskis, who faced technical disruptions during their hearing. The board navigated issues related to coverage and easement disturbances, with public comments emphasizing the need for careful consideration of environmental impacts. William Hollows, representing the applicants, presented revised plans aimed at reducing lot coverage and implementing a stormwater management system. Despite these efforts, community members expressed concerns about the historical context of the property and the potential consequences of the proposed changes.

As the meeting concluded, board members reflected on the challenges of balancing development with community interests. The board ultimately denied the contentious application, citing concerns over the impervious coverage and the lack of compliance with permit requirements. The decision reflected broader concerns about the impact of property modifications on water drainage and the need for responsible development practices.