The applicants presented a comprehensive case to the board, outlining their intention to expand and renovate their home to better accommodate their family’s needs. Their presentation encompassed plans and photographs. The board examined various aspects of the project, including building height, pre-existing non-conformance, and the need for bulk variances. The applicants also addressed the inclusion of a partially finished basement in the floor area ratio calculation, an important metric in determining compliance with zoning regulations.

Drainage patterns, slope, and stormwater management were also discussed, with the applicant clarifying that the proposed project constituted a minor development under Bridgewater Township’s stormwater management regulations. The board raised questions regarding the impact of the proposed expansion on stormwater runoff, street excavation, and the mature trees on the property. The applicant assured the board that there would be no encroachment on the trees and that existing structures like the shed, which was present at the time of their property purchase, were merely being used for storage due to space constraints.

The board’s inquiry further delved into the number of bedrooms and bathrooms included in the expansion, the design of the garage addition, and the existing fencing and roof gutter discharge. A point of discussion was the proposed expansion’s exceedance of the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) and setbacks. Despite this, the applicant made a case that their design was in keeping with the neighborhood’s character and that they had sought feedback from their neighbors, who were in support of the project.

The floor area calculation for the addition was a topic of particular interest, as the board emphasized the importance of accuracy in these calculations to prevent future variance relief needs. There was debate over whether the basement had been included in the floor area ratio calculation, prompting the board to caution the applicant about the implications of finishing the basement in the future. The discussion touched on the potential need for legal and planning representation for the applicant and which criteria for variances—C1 or C2—would be most applicable. The board also considered the benefits of granting the variances against any potential detriment to the public good.

During the meeting, the public was given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments on the application, but there were no responses. The board ultimately expressed support for the project, acknowledging the potential benefits to the neighborhood and the thoroughness of the applicant’s presentation. The application was approved.

Other items on the docket received less attention, as several matters were carried over to future dates without further notice. These included the Bridgewater Realty LLC Starbucks matter, the Belly Holdings LLC matter, the CX Towers application, the 1200 Route 22 Land Investors matter, and the Chimney Rock application. The meeting opened to the public for comments on land use issues not on the agenda, but there were no responses from attendees.