A central focus of the meeting was Archer Capital LLC’s application to build a modest three-bedroom home on a lot originally deemed too small by the borough’s zoning code. Represented by attorney Michael Paige, Alex Patel, a representative of Archer Capital, described the plan to construct a 1,200-square-foot home with a garage on the vacant lot. Patel underscored his family’s connection to Middlesex County, dating back to 1968, and their desire to establish roots in Sayreville.

Patel explained that the proposed home would cover 25% of the lot, exceeding the 20% maximum coverage stipulated by local zoning regulations. He noted that this adjustment was necessary to include a garage, which would prevent the need for on-street parking. “We took that 5% and we applied it to the lot coverage which went from 20 to 25% because of that garage,” Patel stated. He further highlighted that a smaller home would be impractically small, at only 950 square feet, and less appealing by modern standards.

The board heard from Craig Rayen Camp, a professional planner, who provided insights into the planning aspects of the application. Camp detailed the unique characteristics of the lot, describing it as “orphaned” due to subdivision changes not involving the current landowner. He emphasized that the proposed building coverage was reasonable given the neighborhood context and that the variances sought were justifiable. Camp’s analysis concluded that the new home would fit well within the existing fabric of the community.

The necessity of the garage was further underscored by concerns over parking congestion on River Road, exacerbated by patrons of a nearby bar that lacks its own parking lot. The integrated garage would ensure adequate off-street parking, alleviating potential conflicts with bar patrons.

Engineer Harry Tuvel addressed questions related to drainage and runoff, explaining that the lot’s mild slope towards the rear necessitated proper drainage measures. Tuvel assured the board that a detailed plot plan would be submitted for approval before the issuance of building permits.

Despite several variances—undersized lot, insufficient lot width, side yard setback variance for a chimney bump-out, and the increased building coverage—the board found the proposal acceptable. The public comment portion of the meeting saw no participation, and the board unanimously approved the application, with a resolution to be formalized the following month.

Another notable item on the agenda was the review and subsequent approval of a resolution concerning an application at N. Joanne Court. This matter was resolved without objections.

Earlier in the meeting, the board addressed procedural items, including the approval of the minutes from the July 24, 2024, session. These routine approvals marked the administrative closure of the meeting.