At the crux of the meeting, the board examined a case involving the subdivision of the lot in question, where the applicant sought to create two lots that did not fully comply with the R4 zone’s minimum lot area and width requirements. The board’s engineer pointed out that the demolition of the current structure on the property would be necessary before finalizing the subdivision due to the proposed line cutting through the building. Various exhibits and testimony were presented, including a neighborhood aerial view and a potential conforming development exhibit.

The proposal’s potential environmental impact was a focal point of discussion. Concerns about tree removal, the impact on local flooding, and the ecological consequences of the subdivision were raised. A resident’s opposition addressed the subdivision’s potential to disrupt the neighborhood, decrease property values, and harm the local wildlife. The resident cited the township’s master plan and existing zoning laws in support of maintaining the current lot size.

The infill development strategy, intended to provide housing while preserving the environment, was deliberated upon, with the application’s promotion of a desirable visual environment and efficient land use being considered. Questions arose about the lot sizes, building coverage, side yard setbacks, and the effect on the neighborhood’s character. Board members inquired about soil boring results, water table depth, and the construction plan for the proposed subdivision. The public comment period included a resident’s statement urging the board to deny the exception for the lot split, based on privacy, the size of neighboring lots, and the historical context of the property.

Additionally, the subdivision’s implications on the township’s legal and zoning framework were scrutinized. The board discussed the legal implications of denying the application to preserve a historic house on the lot, and the possibility of imposing conditions on the approval related to tree preservation. The conversation touched upon the township’s tree removal ordinance and the authority of the planning board to impose conditions or grant hardship variances.

During the deliberations, a proposal to remove existing structures and sheds to facilitate the subdivision into an interior and a corner lot was discussed. Variances for the corner lot concerning the minimum lot area, width, and front yard setback were considered. An exhibit was presented.

The testimony of a witness stated the proposed subdivision’s benefits, such as the elimination of a non-conforming use and creating two separate lots, each with a single-family residence. The witness argued that the application satisfied the criteria under the municipal land use law for the issuance of the variances. An audience member living on one of the smaller lots supported the subdivision, citing safety concerns regarding the existing structure.