The most notable portion of the meeting revolved around an application that requested a series of variances for a proposed expansion of a residential property. The proposed changes included expanding an existing garage and adding a second story, which would necessitate variances for both side yard and combined side yard setbacks. The applicant’s representative argued that the proposal would have minimal impact, as the addition was below what zoning regulations would permit regarding height, and extensive landscaping plans were included to mitigate any visual effects. These plans even included a provision to replace an invasive Norway maple if it were to die within two years of construction.

Public comments were central to the meeting, with residents voicing strong concerns about the proposal’s impact on the neighborhood’s character and natural environment. Bill Robinson, a resident from Spring Hill Lane, was among those who highlighted the potential loss of trees and greenery, which he described as integral to the neighborhood’s identity. Another resident, Anthony Nent, urged the board to uphold zoning regulations strictly, emphasizing that the variances were intended to protect the community.

The discussion further delved into the specifics of the proposed garage expansion, which would encroach an additional 3.78 feet into the setback area. A board member questioned the necessity of this expansion, pointing out that existing garage conditions already accommodated two vehicles and that the addition might not be justified, especially considering the potential precedent it could set for future applications. The need for a second story, which included additional closet space, was also scrutinized, with some members questioning whether this addition was a need or merely a desire.

Tree preservation emerged as a point of contention, particularly regarding the impact of the proposed construction on local trees and landscaping. Concerns were raised about the survival prospects of specific trees, such as the emerald green arborvitae, which are susceptible to deer. There were also disputes over tree ownership and the health implications of construction activities on these trees. A licensed tree expert testified about the potential damage to existing trees, emphasizing their environmental and aesthetic value.

The board members expressed skepticism about the project’s alignment with the neighborhood’s character, ultimately leading to a motion to deny the application. This motion was seconded and passed with a majority vote.

In contrast, another application on the agenda, involving an extension request for a property on Mount Kemble, received unanimous approval. This extension, already having been granted once, was extended through October 24 for an additional two years.