Central to the meeting was the application for a minor subdivision aimed at constructing two single-family residences on a site currently occupied by a two-story dwelling. The plan proposed subdividing the property into two lots of 50 by 100 feet each, consistent with the borough’s R5 zone regulations. However, the development raised concerns about water drainage, given the property’s elevation and the potential impact on adjacent areas.

The engineering proposal for the site included maintaining existing drainage patterns while installing dry wells to manage stormwater. Despite these measures, board members and attendees expressed apprehension about the potential for flooding, particularly on 20th Street, during heavy rains. The existing slope of the property, coupled with the proposed grading changes, could exacerbate runoff issues, prompting calls for a thorough stormwater analysis.

A point of contention was the elevation changes proposed for the development. The introduction of walk-out basements and the elevation of the finished floor at 98, with a grade at 87, necessitated careful consideration of water management. The board discussed the possibility of introducing a retaining wall to control runoff velocity, a suggestion made in response to concerns about the town’s catch basins’ inadequacy for the increased structures.

The board emphasized the importance of a detailed review of the grading plan, particularly the effect on neighboring properties. The engineer on record confirmed that the plan maintained the proposed elevation changes, which would slightly raise the land, potentially increasing water runoff velocity. Such changes called for a comprehensive strategy to ensure stormwater management was effective, possibly through a Riverstone trench or similar solutions.

In response to these concerns, there was consensus among the board members that the applicant’s team should collaborate with the board’s engineer to refine the proposal and better address the drainage issues. It was noted that the applicant had not adequately demonstrated how the changes would mitigate existing problems, leading to a commitment from the applicant’s team to revise the plans, considering the feedback received.

The board set a timeline for the submission of new plans, with a deadline of December 26 for review at the next hearing on January 9. The practicality of this timeline was debated, with the board stressing that if the applicant could not meet the deadline, they should inform the board to consider postponing to a later date. This approach was intended to ensure transparency and fairness in the process, maintaining jurisdiction and preventing the need for re-notification of adjacent property owners unless substantial alterations to the application occurred.

As the meeting progressed, the board also engaged in discussions about other agenda items, including a restrictive covenant on a property on Look Court and the dismissal of an application for 470 Boulevard. The former involved an outdated and illegal covenant, which the board agreed should be referred to the borough council for action, while the latter involved an applicant withdrawing due to economic and litigation issues.

The board’s discussions also touched on procedural aspects and the importance of adhering to established guidelines and legal precedents. The tone remained focused on clarifying the board’s responsibilities in relation to the applications presented and ensuring a thorough understanding of the implications of each decision.