The barn renovation involved adding a 16-foot extension to accommodate the garage, with assurances given that the design would maintain the barn’s aesthetics. The proposed addition was carefully evaluated to ensure compliance with height and setback regulations, and representatives emphasized their commitment to using similar materials to preserve the historical look. Despite these assurances, concerns were raised about the visual impact on the surrounding area and the possible necessity of variances due to the existing nonconforming structure.

Public comments on the barn project were mixed. While some expressed support, citing the potential preservation benefits, others raised concerns about the design’s historical compatibility. A local historical society trustee suggested design modifications, like a shed roof, to better align with historical precedents. Questions about the barn’s future use, particularly in terms of maintaining its residential character rather than converting it for commercial purposes, were also discussed intensively.

While the barn renovation highlighted the meeting, another significant topic was the ongoing debate over impervious coverage and its impact on zoning applications. A separate application sought a variance for increased impervious surface coverage to construct a pool and pavilion. The homeowners presented plans to manage stormwater with a comprehensive drainage system, including French drains and a stormwater management system to capture runoff from increased impervious surfaces.

The board scrutinized these plans, focusing on the implications of lot coverage and the potential environmental impact. The discussion included the need for a Soil Erosion and Sediment Control plan, and the importance of accurate calculations for any additional variances that might arise. Board members emphasized the necessity of adhering to environmental commission recommendations, particularly concerning the management of increased runoff due to the proposed pool and pavilion.

A recurring theme throughout the meeting was the classification of retaining walls and other structures as impervious surfaces. The board debated whether retaining walls should contribute to lot coverage calculations, with some arguing that walls without concrete footings should not be counted due to their permeability.

The meeting also addressed broader zoning trends, as highlighted in the annual report. The board considered the implications of its current approach to lot coverage and pool water treatments, with discussions on whether to amend regulations to better reflect the impact of such features. Comparisons with neighboring towns’ regulations suggested Bernards Township’s approach was relatively stringent, prompting suggestions for slight adjustments to alleviate application burdens.