The primary focus of the board’s attention was the proposed subdivision of a property located on Grove Avenue. The application requested variances to decrease the required lot width from 60 feet to 20 feet and to slightly exceed the maximum allowable impervious coverage, proposing 41% rather than the stipulated 40%. The property, described as larger than the minimum required lot size for the R60 zoning district, intended to create a flag lot with limited frontage.

During the meeting, a professional planner presented the subdivision proposal, emphasizing the oversized nature of the lot and its potential to accommodate two separate homes while still exceeding zoning requirements. Despite this, the board raised several concerns, particularly regarding the size and implications of the proposed driveway, which would measure 216 feet to the rear lot. Questions arose about the legality of such a driveway under existing zoning laws and its potential impact on stormwater management.

Environmental concerns were also prominent in the discussions. One public participant, the owner of an adjacent property, highlighted the potential impact on local resources, particularly the presence of the wood turtle, a state-threatened species. This participant underscored the importance of preserving the forested land connected to the West Essex rail trail and argued that the new lot should comply with current zoning requirements.

The board also grappled with the subdivision’s implications for emergency access and utility services. The mayor raised concerns about the ability of fire trucks to access the new lot. Additionally, the potential installation of overhead electrical lines prompted aesthetic concerns, with a board member questioning whether the application could be denied based on these speculative issues.

As the discussion unfolded, it became clear that the existing two-family dwelling on the property created a jurisdictional problem. The proposed subdivision would reduce the size of a non-conforming lot, necessitating involvement from the zoning board. This revelation prompted the applicant’s representative to acknowledge the need to address the property’s non-conforming status, resulting in the withdrawal of the application without prejudice. The applicant was advised to file a new application with the zoning board to resolve these issues.

Aside from the subdivision application, the board also reviewed updates to the stormwater ordinance. The updates included necessary corrections for clarity and accuracy in definitions and references.

Additionally, the board discussed recent developments regarding affordable housing numbers, with 173 units required for the next round. The chairperson expressed concern over the implications of these numbers and noted that DMR Planning Group had been hired to develop the affordable housing element of the master plan for $63,000. The planning board was not consulted before this decision, prompting discussions about coordinating with DMR to ensure accurate data and representation of the township’s interests.