The Hollywood Golf Club’s proposal for a new pump house was a central topic. The club, represented by attorney Jennifer Krimco, sought approval for this structure, essential for addressing low water pressure issues that could compromise fire suppression capabilities. The pump house, measuring 18 by 20 feet, is intended to consolidate multiple service points into a single water valve. The location, dictated by New Jersey American Water, was strategically chosen to minimize maintenance obligations and avoid the installation of multiple “hot boxes” along the property. Despite concerns about potential noise and visual impact, the structure was designed with masonry walls and a timber roof to blend aesthetically with the surroundings and mitigate sound. The height of the pump house was specified to be just under 14 feet, below the zoning regulation maximum of 33.3 feet. After reviewing the application, the board unanimously approved the site plan changes and the conditional use variance, recognizing the necessity of the pump house for community safety.

The second significant topic of the meeting was the proposed variance for a shade structure over a patio next to a pool. The applicant, represented by attorney Jennifer Krimco, faced scrutiny over the necessity and implications of connecting two accessory structures with a roof. This connection would reclassify the structures as a single entity under zoning laws, necessitating a variance due to the resultant size exceeding permitted limits. The discussion involved detailed presentations of the proposal, supported by photographs, plans, and expert testimony from engineer Patrick Ward. The board questioned the variance’s justification, debating whether the consolidation of structures was a better zoning alternative than maintaining separate compliant structures. Proponents argued that the roof would provide a safer, more aesthetically pleasing solution by reducing the need for temporary shade options like umbrellas. However, board members expressed skepticism, emphasizing the need for clear planning benefits to justify the variance, particularly when other compliant alternatives might exist.

A notable aspect of the discussion was the possibility of imposing a deed restriction to prevent future enclosure of the shade structure. The board also debated the merits of alternative shade solutions, such as awnings, which might achieve similar goals without requiring a variance. Despite the applicant’s insistence on the proposed location, the board explored options, including relocating the structure to an area with ample space that would not necessitate a variance. Ultimately, the board was tasked with weighing these considerations, reflecting on whether the proposed variance aligned with good planning practices and community standards.