The application for Neil Briskman and Kathleen Danahoo sought to install a generator in the front yard of their corner lot property, deviating from Montclair code section 347-34B. The applicants argued that the lot’s layout left no alternative location for the generator, as the rear yard was occupied by the garage. They assured the board that the generator would be discreetly placed on a concrete platform and surrounded by existing dense shrubs, minimizing visibility from the street. However, noise concerns were raised, with board members questioning the potential disturbance to neighbors, especially given the weekly maintenance testing required for generators.

The applicants were urged to consider additional visual screening, such as plantings, to address noise and visibility concerns, as recommended by the historical preservation commission. The commission had suggested a four-foot tall fence made of natural materials, but the applicants preferred adding more greenery instead, fearing that a fence might detract from their property’s appearance. The board deliberated on the generator’s proximity to the house and the associated risks of carbon monoxide exposure. Suggestions included relocating the generator further back from the street to mitigate exhaust issues, but the applicants were hesitant due to the increased cost and impact on yard space.

The board ultimately decided to move towards a decision, with several members supporting the application under specific conditions to minimize public detriment and ensure compliance with zoning plans. Conditions included limiting generator use to emergencies, adhering to manufacturer testing requirements, and implementing evergreen landscaping for visual screening.

The meeting also revisited the contentious application for a tennis court on South Mountain Avenue. The property owners sought a variance for impervious coverage, proposing a court that exceeded the 35% limit, raising it to 43.4%. Ben Crowder, a civil engineer, presented the project, assuring that existing drainage systems could handle the additional runoff. Despite his confidence, board members and residents expressed concerns over the court’s impact on neighborhood aesthetics, drainage, and potential noise from sports activities.

Concerns about the 10-foot fence surrounding the court were discussed, with residents worried about the visual intrusion and the possibility of the mesh screening exacerbating the issue. The board questioned the adequacy of the proposed evergreen screening. The absence of lighting was noted as a positive, but the court’s dimensions, larger than a standard tennis court, raised further concerns about its integration into the landscape.

The application was further complicated by a jurisdictional defect in the notice given to nearby homeowners. The notice described the project as a tennis court, whereas it allowed for multiple sports, misleading residents about its scope. Legal counsel recommended renoticing to clarify the project’s nature and address any ambiguity.

Discussions about stormwater management highlighted the need for detailed calculations to substantiate claims about the court’s impact on runoff. Mr. Crowder faced scrutiny for not providing these figures, leading to calls for an engineering review to ensure compliance with environmental regulations. The board emphasized the necessity for a proposal, including alternative sizes and positions for the court, to address community concerns effectively.

The board decided to adjourn the meeting, allowing the applicants time to submit revised plans and ensure adequate public notification. The timeline for the application review was extended until the end of November, providing an opportunity for stakeholders to voice additional concerns and for the applicant to address the issues raised during the meeting.