The central focus of the meeting was the proposed duplex development, which encountered hurdles due to its location within a transitional commercial zone and the site’s specific physical constraints. The board was particularly concerned about the potential environmental impact, especially related to stormwater runoff and the proposed basement’s proximity to the water table. It was suggested that the basement should be at least one foot above the water table to prevent water-related issues. This led to a proposal for mandatory water table testing to verify compliance, with conditions stipulating that if the testing did not meet the criteria, the board would retain jurisdiction to require design adjustments, such as removing the basement or modifying its elevation.

In discussions, the board highlighted the necessity of maintaining the first-floor level and ensuring that any changes to the basement did not lead to elevating the entire structure. Landscaping was also a critical point, with recommendations for including native species to aid in water management and ecological compatibility.

The meeting also addressed the zoning and variance requirements for the duplex, noting the lot’s exceptional narrowness and shape as primary factors necessitating variances. The board and the applicant recognized the property’s limitations, which prevented compliance with standard zoning regulations. The applicant emphasized that the residential proposal aligned with the historical use of the area and offered the best potential for the vacant lot. However, the board’s concerns about water management and neighborhood compatibility remained significant obstacles.

Despite these challenges, the proposal aimed to promote several zoning purposes, such as enhancing public health and safety and supporting traffic flow without congestion. Additionally, the project aimed to meet parking and impervious coverage requirements, supported by confirmation of adequate utility services.

However, the board’s vote on the project resulted in a 4 to 3 decision, falling short of the five affirmative votes required for a use variance. The board expressed a willingness to reconsider the vote, acknowledging that some members may not have fully comprehended the implications of their decisions.

In other business, the board discussed ongoing challenges related to the absence of a key secretary, prompting an offer of temporary assistance to manage the agenda and minutes. The board also conducted a consistency review for a brewery zoning ordinance, confirming its alignment with the borough’s master plan and unanimously supporting its approval.