The applicant’s proposal included the addition of a deck, stairs to the basement, and a shed, as well as the removal of the existing garage to maintain a net zero increase in impervious coverage. The applicant emphasized efforts to comply with zoning regulations, mitigating lot coverage, and addressing drainage issues with the inclusion of dry wells and the results from a test pit showing soil composition and groundwater elevation. The board scrutinized the proposal, with detailed questions about the water table classification and the accuracy of stormwater level representations in test pit results.

One of the more topics was the impact of the proposed construction on drainage, with the board extensively discussing the elevation of the house, the flatness of the front lawn, and the responsibility for cleaning drainage inlets. There was a debate about the significance of the proposed increase in impervious coverage and its potential effect on the neighborhood’s drainage. Concerns were raised about the maintenance of the drainage inlets and the impact of the proposed construction on the surrounding properties.

During the public portion of the meeting, residents posed questions about the drainage plans, specifically the approval for tying into the existing drainage pipe, and expressed concerns about the angle and direction of the drainage pipe in relation to their property. A resident also raised issues regarding notice for the hearing and the lack of specific plans provided by the borough. The resident’s inability to verify the pipe’s angle due to restricted access to their property was a point of contention.

Discussion also centered on neighborhood continuity and the character of the area in question, with board members reviewing slides showing aerial views, renovations made by the applicant, and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed changes included the removal of certain structures and the addition of new housing, prompting debate about the variances required for the proposed lots, such as lot width, lot area, and side yard setbacks. The board weighed the potential benefits and drawbacks of the application, including the impact on visual environment, population density, and land use efficiency, and whether the proposed development would constitute an improvement to existing conditions.

A resident’s concern about the impact of the proposed project on a large pine tree on her property became a focal point. The tree, over a century old, could be at risk during construction, particularly concerning the potential damage to its roots. The board and the applicant discussed the issue, acknowledging that construction could impact the tree’s roots despite compliance with setback regulations.

The debate also touched on the appropriateness of the R10 zoning district for the neighborhood, with discussions on the historical context of zoning regulations and their impact on the proposed development. The board considered the history of zoning changes in the area and the necessity of the subdivision, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between existing conditions and proposed changes.