At 288 Garfield Street, an application for a variance was presented due to an error in the approval process that led to a setback violation. The discussion was amplified by public concern, where a resident provided photographic evidence of the alleged violations, including issues with property boundaries, environmental impact, and noise disturbance. The board scrutinized the photographs and listened to the public’s frustration over discrepancies between the actual construction and the approved plans.

In another case, a resident brought to the board’s attention the ineffective silk fence around a property that failed to prevent mud from pouring onto their land. The resident highlighted ongoing construction activity in spite of a stop work order and the lack of cleanliness and disregard for permits during the construction process. The board considered the resident’s concerns about stormwater management and fire hazards, as well as the potential impact of the construction on neighboring properties. The conflicting accounts regarding the timing of construction and the issuance of stop work orders suggested a deeper investigation was needed.

The board debated with a homeowner about the specifics of the stop work order and whether the homeowner had knowledge of it. This discussion was part of a larger conversation on a property where construction work had continued after a stop work order had been issued. The conditions of a resolution for another property were discussed, including stormwater management measures, tree replacement, and debris cleanup.

Stormwater management was a recurring theme throughout the meeting. The board discussed stormwater runoff solutions, including the use of rain gardens or swales for a proposed patio, and the need for coordination with the environmental commission and the borough engineer. The board approved the application for the patio installation, which had exceeded permissible lot coverage, with the condition that the homeowner consults with the environmental commission and the borough engineer for stormwater management.

An architect’s presentation for additions to a property on Briwood Drive East led to concerns about the accuracy of the proposed changes in relation to neighboring properties. The board noted discrepancies in the map provided and the need for clarification on the impact of the proposed additions on neighboring properties. The applicant’s plans for a property on Rwood Drive, which included reducing the rear yard patio size and reconfiguring the front sidewalk to bring down building coverage, were ultimately approved with conditions.