At the forefront of the meeting was the issue of whether the Planning Board had the jurisdiction to grant C2 relief for the subdivision application, a point that sparked a detailed debate on the interpretation of relevant laws. Arguments were presented on both sides, with the applicant’s representative contending that the board had previously granted such relief, while others questioned this precedent. This debate encompassed references to specific ordinances, case law, and the municipal land use law, with the board considering the neighborhood’s wish to preserve its wooded character and the potential effects on adjacent properties.

The applicant’s attorney, Michael Silbert, argued for the major subdivision approval, emphasizing that the proposed lot widths, despite needing variance relief, would not be noticeable to the public and would not compromise the zone’s integrity. Silbert faced opposition from Miss Alonso, who highlighted the conditions under which the board could consider subdivision cases, necessitating supporting testimony for the requested variances. Alonso’s concerns included a private deed restriction and the township’s ordinances on variances, which led to a back-and-forth with Silbert over legal interpretations.

An engineer, Mr. Styers, presented revised plans in response to the concerns raised by the board’s professionals and a neighboring property owner. The updated proposal featured the relocation of houses to the front of the lot, a conservation easement, and enhanced buffering. Styers provided clarity on the technical aspects, such as density calculations and the handling of steep slopes.

Board members engaged with Styers on the specifics of the revisions, including the demarcation of 30% slopes and the need for visual markers. The discussion also turned to the compliance with tree removal regulations and the preservation of native trees. A public commentator expressed skepticism about the enforcement of approval conditions and the maintenance of standards over time.

The board tackled the challenge of balancing the subdivision’s compliance with zoning standards against the neighborhood’s aesthetics. They debated the relative importance of lot area versus lot width, with some members suggesting that the lot area is a foundational element that should be prioritized in zoning considerations.

Discussions also revolved around the potential visual impact of lot width deviations and the balancing of neighborhood fabric with zoning requirements. The board considered market conditions and the potential size of homes that could be built on the proposed lots, striving to understand the implications of the subdivision and its alignment with zoning regulations.

The meeting addressed the intricacies of lot coverage under the proposed plan, with a focus on the inclusion of pervious pavers in the improved lot coverage. Board members raised concerns about the pervious pavement for driveways, debating the available options and maintenance requirements. Additionally, the need for a visual marker for the conservation easement to protect the area from disturbance was discussed.

Concerns about stormwater management were at the fore, with members questioning the impact of tree removal on stormwater runoff and erosion. The board grappled with the limitations of the town’s ability to enforce property maintenance and the monitoring of compliance with regulations.

The board discussed including an operation and maintenance manual in the property deeds to ensure the maintenance of the pervious pavement. They also debated the enforcement of such conditions and the township’s authority in this regard. The inclusion of a clause in the deed regarding the grinder pump was decided.

The debate extended to the interpretation of the steep slope ordinance, the calculation of lot area and density, and the need for compliance with the hillside development calculations. The board considered the historical context of lot adjustments and subdivisions in the area and the potential for future property development.

Due to time constraints and scheduling conflicts, the board decided to carry the analysis of the zoning table, steep slope calculations, and the size and footprint of the homes to a later date.