0:28The board’s decision to deny the amendment for Interbel Automotive’s application was a critical focus of the meeting. The applicant, represented by attorney Lane Miller, sought modifications to a pre-existing D variance for a car dealership on Englishtown Road. The business operations involved disassembling and exporting vehicles overseas, a practice that had been previously approved by the board in 2017. However, due to regulatory changes influenced by the Ukraine conflict, the applicant required a used car dealership license from the DMV to continue buying vehicles at auction, despite having no intention to conduct on-site sales.

24:34The board’s deliberations centered on whether to classify the application as a D1 or D2 variance, with the D1 designation implying stricter scrutiny. A board member raised concerns about the implications of granting such a variance, noting that it might set a precedent that could challenge municipal land use laws. The discussion also covered the potential imposition of conditions on the variance, such as limiting retail operations and signage. Despite arguments presented by Miller emphasizing the necessity of the dealership license for operational viability and addressing concerns about self-created hardships, the board ultimately voted to deny the amendment, questioning the alignment of the business model with zoning purposes.

1:00:03The meeting’s approval of a new residential structure on Shoreland Circle was another key development. The application involved constructing a three-story dwelling on an undersized lot, necessitating multiple variances, including a D4 variance for floor area ratio. The applicant’s representative, Robert McGowan, presented a plans that included demolishing the existing one-story dwelling and replacing it with a modern design featuring two living floors and a garage to provide off-street parking.

McGowan emphasized the proposal’s goal to improve drainage and mitigate runoff issues impacting neighboring properties. The board engaged in discussions about the proposed design elements, particularly the dimensions of the decks and setbacks. Adjustments to the deck size and the introduction of a spiral staircase were considered to optimize space and comply with zoning requirements. Concerns about privacy due to the proximity of the decks to neighboring properties led to recommendations for privacy fencing, which had been favorably received in past applications.

The board also examined the floor area ratio (FAR) discrepancies, with the proposed structure exceeding the typical FAR due to the lot’s narrow width. The board acknowledged the challenges presented by the original lot designs in the Lawrence Harbor area, where many redevelopment projects faced similar constraints. Ultimately, the board approved the application, recognizing the applicant’s efforts to enhance the neighborhood and address zoning limitations.

1:33:37Additionally, the board reviewed other agenda items, including the application from Clayton De Wolf for a home addition on Eisenhower Drive. The proposal required C and D variances due to its extension beyond the existing building envelope. The board identified discrepancies in the submitted plans, particularly regarding the square footage calculations, necessitating the provision of additional documentation. As a result, the application was carried over to the next meeting.