The meeting’s central topic was the public hearing on amending the housing element and fair share plan, specifically addendum number one to the 2024 master plan. Township planner John Barry outlined the amendment concerning three previously approved developments on Main Street, 215, and 2011 Route 23, which resolved an outstanding affordable housing obligation through a court settlement. The resolution resulted in setting aside 10 affordable housing units in the 115 Main Street building and a $200,000 contribution to the township’s affordable housing trust fund. Barry noted that the amendment was straightforward, updating the housing plan to reflect the settlement’s terms, thereby concluding the township’s third round of housing obligations. The public was invited to comment, but no one came forward, leading to a unanimous board approval of the amendments.

Attention then shifted to the application for a property on Walnut Street, where John Veter represented applicants Jimmy and Paulina Jose. The couple, residents of Little Falls for two decades, sought a D2 variance to expand their historic home, originally built around 1910 and used as a two-family residence for the past 20 years, predating the zoning code that generally prohibits such configurations. Veter emphasized the historical context, noting the home’s consistency with the neighborhood’s character. Jimmy Jose expressed his affection for Little Falls and his home, highlighting the need for additional space to accommodate his family while maintaining the home’s aesthetic.

Architect Thomas Messic, with extensive experience in township projects, detailed the proposed changes, including replacing an undersized garage with a new 22-by-22-foot structure, improving vehicle accessibility and aligning with setback requirements. The current garage did not conform to the six-foot setback regulations, and the new design aimed for better alignment with the house and driveway. The proposal also included modernizing the first floor, expanding the second floor, and renovating the attic to create additional living space, necessitating a variance due to exceeding the half-story requirement. Despite these changes, the building’s height would remain within the 31-foot maximum allowed.

Discussions addressed the impervious coverage increase from 64.3% to 68.6% due to the garage expansion and renovations. Despite concerns, no new drainage systems were required, as existing conditions, including the grass area and driveway, would remain largely unchanged. A prescriptive easement issue involving a neighbor’s driveway was acknowledged, with assurances of maintaining the amicable relationship and arrangement.

Board inquiries about the renovation included the location of a new air conditioning unit, planned to avoid additional variances, and the landscaping, specifically whether a small existing walkway would be repaved or replaced with plants. Further clarifications confirmed that an existing chimney for a fireplace would remain, while an exhaust chimney would be removed to facilitate an open floor plan. The applicant assured the board of no future conversion of the attic into an apartment, citing the lack of external access as a deterrent.

The board’s planner summarized the necessary variances for the project, focusing on aesthetic improvements and neighborhood character. These included variances for lot area, width, front yard setback, and the proposed number of stories, while ensuring compliance with height restrictions. The board opened the meeting to public comments, but no one spoke, leading to a brief discussion and a unanimous vote in favor of the application.