The meeting began with a continuation of discussions about a property on Barber Drive. The applicant sought approval to keep a pool and deck in their current positions despite apparent zoning violations. The board scrutinized the materials submitted, including a pool survey and photographs, to assess compliance with local regulations. A point of contention was whether the pool and deck encroached on the property lines, a question complicated by the lack of definitive boundary markers. The board emphasized the need for accurate measurements, with one member underscoring that any part of the deck extending over the property line could not be approved.

Further complicating the matter, the pool’s filtration system and heater required relocation to meet zoning setbacks. It was revealed that the heater was non-operational and had not been inspected, highlighting the absence of necessary permits and inspections due to misinformation from a previous contractor. The applicant expressed frustration, noting the contractor’s departure left them unaware of the permitting requirements.

A licensed contractor, present to assist the homeowner, confirmed the pool’s non-compliance with setback regulations, particularly concerning underground electrical lines. He acknowledged the need for adjustments to the deck and pool’s positioning to align with local codes. The board reiterated the importance of adhering to setback requirements, particularly the 12-foot distance from the property line, and suggested the contractor consult the building department for guidance. The board also noted the impervious coverage on the property exceeded the permitted limits, recommending the contractor amend the application to request a variance if necessary.

Public input highlighted community support for the builder’s contributions to Pompton Lakes, stressing the importance of aligning development efforts with local beautification goals. The board advised the contractor to provide comprehensive documentation, including a survey, to facilitate a more informed decision in future meetings.

Another discussion involved a variance application for a fence at a property on Lennox Avenue and Roma Avenue. The board examined the applicant’s request for relief from height and opacity restrictions for a fence constructed without a permit. The fence, standing at six feet tall and fully opaque, exceeded the four-foot height limit for front yards and lacked the required 50% openness. The board debated whether granting the variance would set a precedent for similar requests across the town, potentially leading to a proliferation of high fences.

Board members expressed concerns about the fence’s impact on neighborhood aesthetics and safety, particularly its visibility on a curved road frequented by children. One member articulated the potential dangers, emphasizing the importance of clear sight lines for pedestrian safety. The applicant’s representative proposed modifying the fence to include latticework, reducing its height to four feet, but board members remained skeptical about the visual impact.

The board discussed the legality of existing fences in the neighborhood, questioning whether they met zoning requirements. Despite arguments that the proposed fence aligned with other structures in the area, the board maintained that the fence’s opaque design required variance relief. A consensus emerged to reduce the fence height while keeping it in its current location, with some members suggesting removing one panel to improve visibility.

Additionally, the board addressed a separate variance application for a shed on West Lenox Avenue. The applicant, Eldin, had constructed the shed after wind damage to a previous structure, believing no permit was necessary. A neighbor’s complaint led him to seek the required permits, revealing that the shed’s 8-foot distance from a deck did not meet the 12-foot requirement. Eldin requested a variance to address this issue, while the board emphasized adherence to floodplain regulations, as the shed was located in a flood area.

Public support for Eldin was voiced by a neighbor familiar with the shed’s long-standing presence. The board considered amending Eldin’s application to restore the shed to its original location, potentially simplifying the variance request. Ultimately, the board approved reducing the distance requirement to eight feet, contingent on compliance with floodplain regulations.

The meeting concluded with discussions on other business, including a resolution for a property on Popular Avenue and updates from the open space committee. Plans for relocating t-ball fields and a bridge replacement project were highlighted, with cost concerns raised about the playground’s feasibility in a floodplain area. The mayor assured that necessary permits had been obtained, although budgetary constraints remained a concern.