One of the most debated items was the Oldan Manor application, which revisited plans from June concerning the expansion and renovation of the existing building. The representative detailed revisions including the expansion of the cocktail room, modifications for a circular driveway, and the addition of a sound attenuation wall and small patio area for weddings. Adjustments were made to the parking area to create two ADA spaces along the sidewalk at the building’s westerly elevation, facilitating easier access. Other changes included a new sidewalk from the southern parking area to the main entrance and vestibule locks on two northern doors to mitigate noise concerns.

However, the most contentious aspect of the application was the proposal for outdoor ceremonies, which had previously been prohibited by the board. Levi Co, representing a concerned homeowner, argued that the proposed changes represented a shift in use that should be treated as a D1 variance rather than an A2 variance. He cited a 1972 application prohibiting outdoor ceremonies due to noise and increased commercial activity concerns. Co emphasized that the modifications, including parking changes and sound barriers, would not sufficiently alleviate the noise issues, creating a “cacophony of noise” impacting nearby residences.

The board engaged in a thorough discussion about the application and the objections raised. Questions arose concerning whether outdoor ceremonies had been conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and whether the patio used for outdoor events was constructed without the necessary permits. The applicant testified that outdoor ceremonies had occurred for at least the past 10 to 12 years. Despite the objections, the board ultimately approved the application with conditions, including no permanent enclosures and only retractable screens to keep out insects.

Another topic was the application for a D4 use variance, which differs from D1 variances due to the presumption of permitted use within the zone. The Coventry standard was referenced, illustrating that the applicant must demonstrate that the site can accommodate the proposed use without substantially detracting from the zone plan or neighborhood. The property’s odd shape and existing non-conforming conditions were noted, and it was clarified that the current application would not intensify those conditions. Concerns were raised about drainage and water flow issues, particularly regarding a back entrance that acted like a waterfall during rains. The applicant mentioned plans to incorporate a drainage system into the design to address these issues. After extensive deliberation, the board approved the application with conditions to ensure proper drainage and structural safety.

The board also discussed the Gladman application on Oal, which proposed covering an existing patio area and adding an outdoor kitchen and fireplace. The applicant clarified that the request involved two variances related to square footage and percentage coverage. The board requested additional documentation, including drawings and photos, to support the application. The board sought clarity on the project’s impact on zoning regulations before proceeding with a vote.

Additionally, the board addressed two resolutions from the previous meeting regarding variances. The first resolution pertained to an application on Greenwood, requiring additional screening on the north side of the property. The second resolution involved an application on Orangeburg, specifying that the proposed fence must be beige in color and made of vinyl material. Both resolutions were approved unanimously.

The meeting also included a report on recent community events, including a successful movie night at Oaks Park. The council liaison mentioned conceptual approval from Green Acres for the Oaks Park house and plans for meetings with an architect to establish specifications for bids. The borough’s ongoing road program was outlined, with milling and paving work expected to continue over the coming weeks.

Lastly, the board discussed the need for additional meetings due to an influx of applications. The scheduling of these additional meetings required coordination among board members, with various members expressing their availability.