The subdivision on North Ashby Avenue LLC was a particularly application. The applicant sought approval to subdivide the parcel into proposed lots 1.01 and 12.01. The revised application, which incorporated feedback from the board from a previous hearing, included reducing the size of the house and making internal design adjustments. The changes aimed to reduce the building coverage variance required. The architect and engineer highlighted the alterations to the plans, and the professional planner presented a analysis and a planning exhibit. The exhibit provided various perspectives on the subject property and included excerpts from the township tax assessor map, zoning map, aerial perspectives, and images of homes in the area.

The project’s focus was on a property that existed on substandard lots, with the professional planner emphasizing the need to address the current relationship of the home to adjacent ones. The applicant’s representative discussed variances needed for the habitable floor area ratio and lot area for the two new lots. Efforts had been made to reduce the proposed habitable floor area ratio overage and to configure both new lots to be identical in size and shape, consistent with subdivision regulations. The applicant also addressed the 2006 regulations targeting the “mcmansion phenomenon,” asserting the proposed project would not contribute to this issue but rather would integrate well with the existing neighborhood.

A unanimous motion to approve the application was passed after board members expressed appreciation for the adjustments made to fit the building within the envelope and praised the historical context provided. The consensus among board members was that the project would positively impact the neighborhood.

Additional applications included a couple, the Adelinas, who sought a variance for a deck modification. They removed an unsafe deck and made modifications resulting in a setback requirement violation. After reviewing photos and discussing the changes, the board approved the request, advising future mindfulness regarding setback requirements.

The Melinas presented their application for a second-story addition to their home. The architect explained the need for more space, proposing a new primary bedroom and play space for the children. The board approved the application for the zoning variance after some discussion.

Another approval was granted for a garage expansion needing a variance for the side yard setback requirement. The homeowner presented their case for a larger garage, which the board ultimately supported after reviewing the proposed plans.

The board also discussed an application for a pool and patio requiring variances for rear and side yard setbacks. Concerns were raised about the impact on neighboring properties, but after further details were provided, the board determined that the proposed construction would not impact the surroundings and approved the application.

In addition to these applications, the board considered a plan for a residential property seeking to build above the garage. The addition would include a primary bedroom with a walk-in closet and a decent-sized bathroom. The board approved the application, recognizing the logical placement of the new structure despite the requirement for variances for the side and front yard due to the existing non-conforming garage location.

An application for the installation of a pergola required a variance due to its proximity to the principal building. The board reviewed the submitted survey and design specifics before approving the application, acknowledging the need for the variance.

Furthermore, the board addressed a proposed project by Mr. Bernstein for the construction of a pergola over an 18 by 18 patio. After discussions about the pergola’s size and structural integrity, the board approved the project. Another approval was granted to Mr. Gango for a new attached garage, deck, and rear addition, which required variances for front yard setback and both right and left side yard setbacks.