The application for the subdivision, identified as number 25-9P, involves dividing an existing property into two lots, measuring approximately 0.94 and 0.82 acres respectively. These lot sizes, while smaller than the required one-acre minimum, are larger than most existing lots in the area, which were established under a 1977 cluster development scheme. The board considered several variances, including those for front yard setbacks and proximity to steep slopes. The proposed design includes an 8-foot setback from slopes, an improvement from the current zero-foot distance.

Concerns about drainage and water management dominated the discussion, with board members and residents alike expressing apprehension about water runoff. The proposal includes a dry well system designed to manage roof runoff, capturing up to four inches of rainfall. This system would connect to the existing storm drainage infrastructure. However, questions about the dry wells’ percolation rates led to suggestions for design adjustments if necessary.

Residents voiced their concerns during the public comment period. One individual, Mr. Selenino, highlighted a history of water accumulation near his home, questioning whether the proposed development might exacerbate existing flooding issues. The applicant assured attendees that the proposed stormwater management plan would improve the current situation by capturing more water than existing structures, despite the increase in impervious coverage due to the new homes.

Another point of contention was the impact of tree removal on the property’s drainage capabilities. Attendees worried about the loss of mature trees and their role in absorbing water, with discussions emphasizing the differences in root systems between new and established trees. The board acknowledged that a plansting plan had yet to be developed, with the township engineer slated to review it upon the plan’s approval.

The meeting also addressed concerns about maintaining the neighborhood’s character and streetscape, particularly the consistency of front yard setbacks. The board considered the visual impact of the proposed homes and discussed architectural elements, such as window placements, to ensure variation and avoid identical aesthetics.

In another notable agenda item, the board discussed revisions to ordinances related to master plan consistency. Ordinance 576-25 aimed to amend sections concerning apartments in business zones, with debates about the clarity of the term “business zones” and suggestions to rename it to “apartments in villages and hamlet.” Similarly, Ordinance 577-25 focused on renaming residential and light industrial zone districts. Both ordinances were reviewed for consistency with the master plan and ultimately approved unanimously.

During the meeting, the board also reviewed a proposed ordinance concerning houses of worship. Members of the Ordinance Review Committee highlighted the need for clarity and inclusivity in the language used. Legal input was deemed necessary to ensure the ordinance’s defensibility, with a draft expected before the next meeting.

The meeting closed with a discussion on potential collaborations with nearby municipalities for watershed management and resilience grant opportunities. The board considered forming alliances similar to the Whippany River task force to pursue grant funding, emphasizing the importance of local initiative and coordination among communities.