A central focus of the meeting was the application concerning 2515 Lesto Properties on Johnson’s Lane. The property, featuring a long-vacant commercial structure known as Buddy’s Tavern and an existing single-family home, was proposed for a minor subdivision and conversion into residential use. This proposal required a D1 use variance due to its location within a B1 neighborhood business zone, which typically does not permit residential developments. The board’s deliberation on this matter was marked by a detailed presentation from the applicant’s team, including engineer Joseph Buch, who emphasized the property’s proximity to a school and its potential as a residential buffer.

Buch outlined the specifics of the proposal, which involved demolishing existing structures to create new residential lots, and highlighted the need for variances related to side yard setbacks and building coverage. He argued the transition from commercial to residential use would address the property’s current underutilization and align with municipal planning goals, particularly given the adjacent residential zones R10 and R5. The board members engaged in a discussion about zoning requirements, the historical context of the property, and the potential impact on the surrounding community.

One of the points of contention was the request for variances to accommodate the proposed lot configurations. The existing structures were deemed non-conforming under current B1 zoning, and the proposed plans included side yard setbacks that were more lenient than those required in nearby residential zones. The board members questioned the proposal’s alignment with community needs and whether it adequately addressed the area’s character. In response, Buch insisted the development would enhance neighborhood appeal and provide necessary residential options near educational facilities.

The board also considered a separate proposal involving three undersized lots in the B1 zone, which required a D1 use variance to permit residential use. These lots were smaller than the 10,000 square feet typically required in the zone, measuring just over half that size. Comparisons were drawn to the neighboring R5 district. The board examined the implications of the side yard variances and the necessity of aligning future construction with R5 bulk standards to ensure design flexibility.

The conversation also touched on procedural aspects, such as the need to file subdivision plans by deed rather than map, with assurances that detailed descriptions would be reviewed by borough professionals. The board members sought clarification on whether developers would adhere to the comments in a professional report regarding side yard setbacks. The representatives affirmed compliance, acknowledging that the existing dwelling on one lot would require variances due to its proximity to adjacent properties.

Concerns were raised about a parking lot across the street from the proposed lots, associated with the closed restaurant. The representative clarified that this lot was not part of the current proposal and would require separate approvals if it were to be utilized again. This highlighted the ongoing need to address the lot’s future use independently.