One of the meeting’s most scrutinized applications involved Prant Kumar and Minaki Shah’s proposal for a second-floor addition at Three Hearthstone Terrace that exceeded zoning regulations. The applicants sought to increase their habitable floor area beyond the allowable 4,870 square feet, proposing 5,199 square feet. Their revised plans aimed to reduce previous discrepancies, notably by eliminating a second-story space and lowering the ceiling height, which decreased the habitable area from 2,001 square feet to 1,374 square feet. Despite these reductions, several board members questioned the necessity of granting the variance, stressing that proximity to compliance does not guarantee approval. Concerns about the potential for misuse of the additional space as a rental property were addressed by the applicants, who agreed to a condition restricting the space to personal use. The board approved the motion, contingent upon these conditions and pending a revised zoning analysis to ensure accuracy.

Another application that sparked interest was a proposal for a new single-family home on Maplewood Drive, which required variances for the front yard setback and habitable floor area. The lot was undersized, measuring under the 9,375 square feet required by zoning laws. The planner justified the front yard setback variance by referencing the township’s allowance for averaged setbacks among neighboring lots. However, the board noted discrepancies in how the porch encroachment was measured, prompting further verification of zoning requirements. Neighboring residents expressed concerns about the proposed changes, questioning their implications for neighborhood aesthetics and property values. The board assured the public that the planner would address these concerns, reiterating that zoning compliance, not aesthetics, is their primary focus.

Additionally, the board considered an application involving a two-car garage addition to an existing one-car garage, citing the property’s irregular shape and steep topography as hardship factors. The board approved the variance upon ensuring adherence to stormwater management regulations.

A notable public comment came from a resident, Barbara, who highlighted persistent flooding issues affecting her property and questioned whether a proposed stormwater management system would alleviate these problems. While the zoning board does not directly handle engineering concerns, they acknowledged the importance of effective drainage management, emphasizing that such issues would be addressed in the finalization of building plans.

In another high-profile case, the board deliberated over a variance for a property on North Livingston Avenue, where the applicant sought to add a bedroom and full bathroom to the first floor of a home lacking adequate kitchen space. The architect argued that the variances were minimal and necessary due to the narrow lot configuration. Despite concerns about potential congestion, the board approved the application, recognizing the proposal’s alignment with existing structures.

The meeting also saw discussions about potential impacts on neighborhood character from proposed extensions, such as the property on Amelia Avenue, where the board approved a second-floor addition despite the setback violations. The decision considered the enhancement of the home’s architectural details, moving away from its boxy appearance.