The application for a property on Preston Drive involved a bulk variance request due to impervious coverage issues discovered during the sale process. Wallik explained that a survey revealed the property’s coverage exceeded zoning laws, necessitating the variance request. The renovations, including a patio and walkway, were completed by family members with experience in such work. The existing gravel path was replaced with pavers, leading to a coverage increase. Board members were concerned about the property’s steep backyard drop-off, which could pose safety risks. Wallik reassured them that this condition predated renovations and neighbors had not reported any issues.

The board scrutinized the timeline of renovations and the materials used, particularly focusing on the stability of the pavers and whether the gravel path’s impervious nature was a factor during the property’s purchase in 2013. The discussion included the absence of permits for these modifications, with a board member noting the applicant’s contracting background should have facilitated better compliance awareness. Despite these issues, the engineer’s review did not recommend stormwater mitigation measures, influencing the board’s decision to approve the variance.

In another discussion, the board addressed stormwater management, focusing on applications that increase lot coverage. The board engineer’s involvement was emphasized to ensure proper mitigation. Although incremental lot coverage increases might seem minimal, their cumulative effect could be problematic. The board debated whether a broader program by the township engineer would be more effective than addressing each case individually. Concerns arose about the burden on applicants who must seek variances for minor changes, highlighting the case of Mr. Cortez, who required a variance for a small alteration related to an exterior elevator pad. His request stemmed from the need to aid access due to his and his wife’s age and mobility issues.

Mr. Cortez’s application involved a minor increase in impervious coverage, from 29.1% to 29.2%, to accommodate an elevator pad. This request was linked to a 2011 subdivision approval permitting higher coverage, which was later reduced. The board acknowledged the necessity of the variance given the pre-existing legal condition. Board members agreed the increase was negligible and would not impact the neighborhood. The board’s support was unanimous, with members expressing empathy for Mr. Cortez’s situation and the challenges posed by his property’s hillside location.

Members reflected on the need for a comprehensive master plan to address these concerns and reduce conflicts, recognizing the time and resources consumed by such issues. The board also considered the procedural aspects of zoning and construction, emphasizing the importance of as-built surveys for closing out projects.