At the heart of the proceedings was the homeowner’s application seeking relief for the construction of a carport with a permeable driveway, coupled with addressing a previously built roofed basement entryway. Marco Tarelli, the homeowner, provided a booklet summarizing responses to earlier concerns, stressing the necessity of the carport to shield vehicles from acorns and prevent financial damage, and the roofed entryway to thwart rainwater from encroaching into the basement. The latter issue had become pressing due to recent heavy rainstorms, which had seen water infiltrate the basement prior to the construction of the protective roof.

Tarelli presented documentation from the township’s Sewer Department to underscore the presence of a sanitary sewer line on his property, which restricted options for regrading the land to direct water away from the basement door. He outlined potential modifications to the roof entryway to better align with the neighborhood’s character, noting that any plans would require the Building Department’s nod of approval.

The board members scrutinized these proposals, particularly questioning the likelihood of water ingress through the open front of the entryway. Additionally, they deliberated on the necessity of windows and the roofline’s design. Tarelli emphasized that the modifications were in the preliminary phase and contingent upon official endorsement.

The dialogue expanded to a related discussion about a shed area on Tarelli’s property. Board members underscored the need for Building Department approval for any modifications discussed, which included alterations to the roof, windows, and doors. The applicant explained the modifications were intended to address basement water issues by rerouting water away from the property. However, concerns were voiced about potential water runoff onto neighboring properties, prompting a wider debate on drainage and the need for the proposed changes.

The board members questioned the necessity of the modifications and suggested enhancing the appearance of the existing structure without significant alterations. Regarding the carport, the board sought additional information and requested visual depictions of the proposed structure. It emerged that the carport required a setback variance.

Additionally, the historical context of the property’s modifications was dissected, with the board examining the reasons behind the initial construction of the shed and its effectiveness in resolving the water problems. The board expressed a preference for a solution that would not introduce new drainage challenges.

During the meeting, a neighboring property owner voiced opposition to the placement of the shed, citing concerns about water runoff. They presented drawings of alternative roof lines as potential mitigations for the issues raised. The neighbor’s testimony regarding historical water problems and their resistance to the proposed changes added to the board’s considerations. The board members requested and reviewed expert opinions, including those from the town engineer, to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed modifications and address the neighboring property owner’s apprehensions.

A separate but related topic of discussion was a property owner’s addition that encroached on the property line easement. The property owner, distressed by the lack of resolution since the previous meeting, mentioned the property manager’s absence due to an emergency. The board engaged in a debate on whether the property owner had been cooperative in seeking a solution. A public member, a licensed contractor from California, provided testimony on the building’s structure and drainage issues, highlighting concerns about encroachment and setbacks.

The board probed the property owner about the shed and its drainage system, emphasizing the structure’s construction without necessary permits and approval. In the end, the board granted a variance to legalize the covered cellar entrance addition, imposing conditions regarding the structure’s appearance and landscaping. They scheduled the final decision for the next meeting and warned the property owner against further unpermitted alterations.