The application’s complexity was evident as the proposed amendments sought variances for front yard setback, a 50-foot buffer to residential zones, and front yard outdoor storage. Multiple waivers were also requested, including landscaping a minimum of 10% of the parking area, hairpin striping for parking spaces, and providing a sidewalk throughout the site. The applicant’s engineer, Lena Baron, provided in-depth information about the existing site conditions, proposed changes, and the rationale behind them. This included the removal of a single-family dwelling to be replaced with a storage building and enhancements to the existing buffer through additional landscaping.

Board members raised several concerns, among them the number of parking spaces, concerns about intensification of use, and a need for Department of Transportation (DOT) review due to an unapproved curb cut. The board also discussed a waiver from providing a sidewalk along the frontage, which had been granted with the original application due to minimal pedestrian traffic. Additional waivers were requested for the loading berth requirement, given the ample loading space on site, and for the use of gravel for the property’s storage areas instead of millings, which raised ordinance compliance issues.

The application also detailed various proposed uses, including equipment rentals and sales of topsoil, mulch, sand, and stone. The applicant sought flexibility for business hours, especially during winter seasons for salt sales, and provided a plan for future resolution compliance and an updated water demand submission.

Regarding storm water drainage, the applicant proposed adding another underground system to manage the increase in impervious surfaces, which led to discussions about the design and maintenance of the storm water system. The board debated the need for a third system in case of failure and considered the requirement for easements for drainage to protect residential properties from flooding. Additionally, the applicant’s tree preservation plan acknowledged a deficit of 41 trees, agreeing to contribute to the borough’s tree fund.

The public participation section of the meeting brought forth significant neighborhood concerns. The most vocal, Bob Duffy, detailed the impact of the proposed changes on the community, citing noise, trucks, and past litigation. Another resident, Jeffrey Short, presented a binder of evidence, including photos and police reports. Despite initial objections to the relevance and origin of the photos, the board allowed Short to continue with his presentation. A resident presented concerns about silica dust from the neighbor’s property, noise, and environmental hazards, including flooding and dead trees due to improper handling of materials.

The board’s discussions also touched upon the potential health hazards and environmental impact of the landscaping business. Some members questioned the definitive identification of silica dust and its health effects, while others discussed the business’s noise impact and the need for air and water quality studies. Additionally, the board considered imposing conditions to limit operations and mitigate noise, dust, and visual impacts on neighboring properties.

The emotional testimonies from residents impacted by the landscaping business highlighted the flooding, noise, traffic, and quality of life issues they faced. They urged the board to take their concerns into account and consider denying the application. The attorney for the applicant acknowledged past non-compliance and attempted to address the residents’ concerns.