The board’s most discussion involved the subdivision application for a property on Alexander Avenue, which required a preliminary and final major subdivision approval with a C variance. The applicant’s attorney detailed changes made to the application after previous feedback from the board. Originally a major subdivision with a cul-de-sac, the plan was revised to a minor subdivision, eliminating the cul-de-sac and proposing two lots with reduced widths and frontages. The minimum lot width required is 100 feet, but the new plan proposed 60 feet for both lots. Additionally, a new variance for minimum lot frontage was introduced, with one lot requiring 66 feet but only having 50 feet.

The applicant’s representative and engineer, Mr. Miola, testified about the revisions. He assured that the new layout met necessary setbacks, providing adequate light, air, and open space for the proposed homes. He acknowledged the historical context of the neighborhood, established in 1954, noting that many homes had been expanded over time. The board engaged in discussions about the proposal’s alignment with planning principles and neighborhood compatibility.

Discussions highlighted potential benefits of the development, emphasizing aesthetics and effective land use. One board member suggested rearranging house placements to align better with neighboring properties’ front yards. Concerns were raised about narrowing homes, which could lead to garages dominating the front elevation. A consensus emerged that one-car garages would not be well-received in the current market.

The proposal was praised for incorporating more green space and reducing impervious coverage, viewed as positive environmental impacts. Proposed fencing was expected to provide a visual buffer for neighboring residences. A board member emphasized the importance of maintaining neighborhood character with the house placement, dismissing the idea of rotating homes as it would lead to garages visually dominating the street.

Scrutiny was given to zoning table discrepancies, particularly concerning front yard setbacks. An incorrect dimension was noted, prompting discussions on rectification and the importance of precise measurements for zoning compliance. Suggestions for landscaping enhancements were made, including the use of American arborvitae for natural screening between properties, maintaining privacy and visual aesthetics.

The evidentiary hearing concluded without public questions. A motion to approve the application included conditions such as working with the township forester to ensure appropriate tree species, addressing comments from the board engineer and planner, constructing a wooden split rail fence along the wetlands buffer, and committing to stormwater management concerns. Compliance with the Morris County Planning Board’s recommendations was also reiterated, with clarification that a deed restriction was unnecessary. The board unanimously approved the motion.

In addition to the subdivision, the board addressed other applications, including amenity improvements at Colonial Heights and revisions for multiple tenants at a GR Acquisition LLC property. Both applications were approved unanimously.