The primary topic of discussion surrounded a variance application for a six-foot high fence already constructed at a residential property. The existing ordinance permits only three-foot fences in front yards, leading to significant deliberations among board members and residents. One board member questioned, “If we approve this tonight, what stops them from wanting to do the same thing?” This concern highlighted the potential for setting a precedent that could lead to more applications for similar variances, potentially altering the neighborhood’s visual environment.

The fence in question was part of a detailed set of architectural plans prepared by Stonefield Engineering, which underwent multiple revisions before approval. Despite these revisions, the fence’s height remained consistent throughout. The applicant’s attorney, Bruce Whitaker, represented the case, emphasizing that all necessary approvals had been secured and that a temporary certificate of occupancy had been granted. Whitaker argued that the fence, described as an “estate fence,” enhanced the neighborhood’s aesthetic and provided additional security amid local concerns about burglaries and thefts.

However, the building inspector later deemed the six-foot height unclear, leading to the application being denied and prompting the current discussion. This discrepancy raised questions about the responsibilities of professionals in the construction industry and the accuracy of submitted plans. A board member noted, “It is not the responsibility of the building department officials to identify mistakes in the submitted drawings.” The dialogue underscored the importance of ensuring that building plans adhere to local zoning rules to avoid such situations.

Residents also expressed their views during the public comment session. One resident from Clove Court voiced concerns about the public feedback process, citing a past meeting where technical issues reduced public participation. They questioned the rationale behind the security claims made in the fence application, arguing that a three-foot fence could have sufficed. Another resident from Autumn Lane highlighted a similar fencing issue with the Ida townhouses on Central Avenue, noting that promised landscaping had not been fulfilled, leading to debris in their yard.

Public comments also revealed a divide in opinions regarding neighborhood character. A resident argued that the proposed fence, while perhaps enhancing security, did not fit Old Tappan’s community spirit. They pointed out, “If somebody wants to become friends because they’re neighbors, they have to talk through a gate or wait until you open it.” This sentiment reflected concerns that the fence could negatively impact social interactions among neighbors.

The debate extended to logistical issues linked to package deliveries and landscaping. One participant humorously remarked, “You must have different Amazon men than I do because they just drop and run,” highlighting differences in experiences with delivery personnel. Another resident argued that lush landscaping could enhance property values more than a six-foot fence.” However, board members raised concerns about potential disruptions to neighbors and the implications of setting a precedent for taller fences in the area.

Another topic was the discussion of old business, particularly the proposed fence ordinances identified as 12614 and 12622. These ordinances aimed to clarify and tighten existing regulations regarding fencing. A board member explained that the planning board’s role was to evaluate whether the ordinances were consistent with the policies outlined in the master plan. The board decided to defer discussion on the ordinances until after other applications were addressed.

In addition to the fence variances, the board discussed several community updates and events. Old Tappan was recognized as a “healthy town to watch,” and the town received a substantial grant from the Department of Community Affairs for playground improvements at Garfield Park. The recent “Touch a Truck” event was highlighted as a success, with gratitude extended to First Responders and volunteers. Purchase orders for large-budget capital items, including a new storage garage for the Department of Public Works and commercial-grade field groomers for local ball fields, were also approved. Mayor Thomas Gallagher’s newsletter mentioned the formation of an advisory committee tasked with overseeing master plan updates and identifying open spaces.