The most pressing topic revolved around the application for creating a subdivision on a 5.46-acre lot, necessitating a density variance. The applicant aimed to divide the property into five new tax lots for single-family residences, which would include a stormwater management lot. This proposal required variances for density greater than what is typically allowed in the R3 zone, as well as variances for minimum lot width, depth, front yard setback, and side yard setback for the proposed lots.

The legal representative for the applicant presented the case, acknowledging prior concerns regarding a jurisdictional issue from a recently approved but unperfected subdivision. It was noted that the applicant agreed to ensure that the previous subdivision approval would be perfected as part of the current application. This commitment aimed to address any potential legal and planning discrepancies from earlier approvals.

The applicant’s professional engineer provided an overview of the existing site conditions, referencing an aerial exhibit to illustrate the property’s location and surrounding context. The engineer clarified that the proposal relied on previously approved infrastructure improvements, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established zoning regulations while seeking the necessary variances for the proposed development.

A significant part of the discussion centered on the requirement for public water and sewer service. The applicant had preliminary approval from the Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA) to connect to public water and sewer, but faced the obstacle that the existing property was not within the state sewer service area. Approval from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) was necessary, a process that could take one to two years. The board expressed concerns about the project’s impact on existing sewer infrastructure, questioning whether the current systems could handle additional homes.

Further debates arose regarding the adequacy of the stormwater management strategy, especially since some runoff from the new lots could affect adjacent properties’ drainage systems. The applicant was asked to consider converting one of the proposed lots into a stormwater management lot, a suggestion viewed positively as it could enhance the project’s credibility and alleviate some concerns about density and infrastructure impacts.

In discussing the variances, the board highlighted the complexities of navigating zoning regulations, particularly in terms of density variances. The applicant’s attorney clarified that while the intent was to create lots similar to those in the R1 Zone, the request was explicitly for a variance to allow for smaller lots than typically required under the prevailing R3 zoning laws. The speaker emphasized that this proposal would eliminate the need for septic systems, promoting public utility connections, which is preferred for environmental and maintenance reasons.

The board also considered the implications of the Holden Court project, which included stormwater facilities already underway. The applicant was cautioned that the amount of land disturbance from the proposed development could classify the project as a major subdivision, necessitating a more comprehensive stormwater management plan to address potential runoff issues.

As part of the conditions for preliminary approval, the board highlighted the need for the establishment of a homeowners association responsible for maintaining common areas and managing stormwater. Additionally, there were discussions about sidewalk construction responsibilities, with the applicant expressing willingness to comply with sidewalk ordinances should another developer fail to meet their obligations.

In other matters, the board reviewed an application for variances related to a residential property located in the R3 zone. The applicant sought to make renovations to a property situated on 0.93 acres, which does not meet the R3 zone’s requirement of a three-acre minimum. This necessitated a request for variances for the lot area and side yard setbacks. The board noted that the property was conforming under its previous R1 designation and became nonconforming due to new R3 regulations, leading to minimal variances primarily resulting from the new zoning requirements.

Additionally, the board deliberated on an application concerning a shed installed without necessary permits. The applicant articulated that the shed’s placement was constrained by a conservation easement covering approximately 30% of the rear yard. A variance was sought to reduce the setback to three feet from the property line. The board debated whether the claimed hardship was legitimate, ultimately granting a C2 variance based on the argument that the proposal would not substantially detract from the public good and would promote reasonable use of the property.