The representative from Montclair Indoor Golf LLC made a case for the low-intensity use of the facility, emphasizing its nature as a club membership-oriented business without external modifications to the building. The owner shared their passion for golf and their positive impressions of Millburn, expressing their intention to open this second location in the town. The board members inquired about various operational aspects, including membership access, security measures, and the potential impact on the neighborhood. The speaker addressed concerns about noise and security, ensuring the business would primarily operate from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., with minimal late-night activity.

A point of discussion was the potential maximum number of people on site, which was clarified to be around 13, with space for up to 15, and the minimal impact on parking due to the nature of the clientele. The board also considered the facility’s potential effects on the downtown area and parking availability, with the representative arguing that the activity aligns with the trend of experiential retail uses that can enliven downtown areas. The application for the indoor golf facility was ultimately approved, with some board members expressing reservations about the operating hours but ultimately voting in favor of the project.

In addition to the indoor golf facility, the board addressed several variance applications and property development plans. The board approved an application for an addition to a house on Troy Drive after the owner and architect explained their need for a variance due to recent changes in the zoning ordinance. The board demonstrated an understanding of the unintended consequences of the new ordinance and agreed to the setback variance required for the proposed addition.

Another discussion involved the proposed changes to a site plan that included reductions in building and impervious coverage, modifications to fencing, and landscaping. The civil engineer presented the changes, which involved converting roofed areas to open trellises and reducing building coverage by over 550 square feet. The homeowner provided testimony on the property’s initial intentions and the decision to expand the home to accommodate elderly family members. The board members engaged in a debate about the appropriateness of the proposed development concerning the zoning and master plan.

Further discussions included a presentation by a representative seeking variance relief for a property. The representative emphasized adjustments to numerical values for lot and building coverage variances and sought to demonstrate the compatibility of the proposed home with development trends in the area. The board members and public discussed the slow progress of the property development and the applicant’s conservative approach to building.

Testimony from several neighbors and individuals representing the applicants for various property plans was heard, with neighbors expressing support for the improvements and engagement in discussions concerning fence placement and water mitigation. The board members weighed these testimonies against concerns regarding zoning regulations compliance, particularly for building coverage and lot coverage.

Lastly, the board deliberated on the construction of an outdoor kitchen, fire pit, and sports court at a private residence. The homeowner and the applicant’s engineer presented the unique challenges of the property, including its flag lot layout and freshwater wetlands, which affected the placement of outdoor structures. The board members examined the proposed location of the sport court, considering alternative locations and the impact on trees and vegetation. There was a division of opinions among the board members, and the application was eventually approved following a motion that received both supporting and opposing votes.