10:53The most notable discussion revolved around a notable increase in lot coverage proposed for a residential property, raising the existing coverage from 39.1% to 42.4%, far exceeding the permitted zone limit of 22.5%. This prompted board members to scrutinize historical changes in coverage, referencing Google Earth images from 2002. Questions arose regarding how previous approvals allowed such exceedances and the potential impact on drainage.

32:40Concerns about the property’s pool further complicated matters. A board member inquired about the adequacy of the pool’s fencing, a requirement that might have been overlooked due to the pool’s age. Uncertainty about the surrounding materials, whether gravel or blacktop, added another layer of complexity. The drainage plan included a proposed seepage pit, yet its location and efficacy were questioned, alongside the need for a deck variance.

01:19:12Flooding concerns were prevalent, especially with the increased impervious surface area. A dry well or seepage pit was recommended to mitigate runoff, as the property already faced drainage issues. An engineering plan addressing only the net increase in coverage was deemed insufficient, prompting a request for additional measures, particularly for the rear of the property where new coverage would concentrate. The board weighed the drainage plan’s adequacy, considering the steep area incline and heavy rainfall scenarios.

01:14:24Public comments highlighted residents’ fears about flooding and runoff, questioning the proposed plans’ sufficiency. They emphasized a need for a comprehensive solution covering both the front and backyard to prevent negative impacts on adjacent properties. Some residents doubted the dry well’s efficacy in heavy rains. The board agreed that if runoff issues persisted, further mitigation efforts would be necessary.

Meanwhile, a separate matter involved a property application with drainage and landscaping issues. A witness detailed the drainage floor and landscaping plans around a pool area, with discussions touching on shrubs and trees near a property line, notably bamboo. A public member expressed frustration over standing water in their yard, seeking a compromise to mitigate water issues. The board stressed the need for a comprehensive engineering plan to address neighbor concerns about drainage, highlighting the necessity of directing water away from neighboring properties and specifying landscaping plans.

01:24:28Due to ongoing concerns, the board adjourned this matter until June 17, with no further notice required if the application proceeded. This decision followed a motion to adjourn, which was unanimously approved, before moving to the next application.

01:35:37In another development, the board reviewed an application from Springfield Holdings New Jersey LLC for a self-storage facility on Victory Road. The representative outlined site plan changes, detailing the property’s elevation and retaining wall construction. Discussions included the proposed buildings’ dimensions and height, with clarifications on the artificial grade. Concerns arose about potential water trapping behind the walls, prompting suggestions for catch basins to manage water flow.

30:50The board’s professionals emphasized ensuring adequate drainage, given the landscape changes. Despite these concerns, the board sought a motion to approve the application, which passed unanimously without public opposition.