The central focus of the meeting was the applicant’s request for a minor subdivision, intending to divide the property to maintain the current residence and build a new house on an adjacent lot. The applicant provided a detailed presentation that included plans, photographic evidence, and testimony regarding the history of the house and the modifications required to meet setback ordinances. A neighbor’s letter was mentioned, although its consideration was debated due to rules of evidence and the need for cross-examination.

A key issue was the adjustment of the front yard setback on Smith Street to comply with regulations, which the applicant agreed to modify by 1.3 feet. The board and a planner examined various property features, including sidewalk installation, tree removal, and the property’s water and sewer history. The applicant’s willingness to work with the township was noted, particularly concerning the orientation of the front door and the installation of separate services for the lots.

The board also discussed compliance with grading plans, obtaining permits from Freehold Soil and the Two Rivers Water Reclamation Authority, and adherence to subdivision notes. The payment of the tax M provision fee and the acquisition of RightWay permits were addressed. The discussion extended to the milling and paving on Smith Street, emphasizing the need to comply with street opening ordinances and coordinate with utility companies.

In a supplemental letter from Insight regarding variance qualifications and floor area calculations, the planning letter examined the calculation of floor area and the potential modification of the primary entrance to Smith Street to address variance concerns. The applicant and the board engaged in a debate over the necessity of moving the entrance, with the applicant expressing a preference to keep the house intact while showing a willingness to collaborate on a solution.

The board considered variances for lot 31.0, including relief for front yard, rear yard, and side yard setbacks. The applicant argued for maintaining existing setbacks due to the non-conforming condition of the house. Concerns were voiced about the appropriateness of scale and density in the neighborhood and the unauthorized removal of trees, prompting a discussion about jurisdiction and proper channels for obtaining tree removal permits. The issue of flooding on Smith Street was raised, with a request for the installation of dry wells.

The proposed changes to the property’s layout, including the front yard and tree removal, were met with public concern. There was a review of an attachment to an engineer’s letter dated March 14th, marked as P1, which provided additional context to the discussions.

Further, the board debated the implications of adjusting the lot line for a corner lot, seeking to balance lot size and setbacks while maximizing space between existing and potential new structures. There were suggestions for compromise and a focus on replanting to mitigate the impact on green space.