Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance Singlefamily topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Highlands board approves revised Miller Street single‑family plan with deed restriction and conditions
Summary
After extended review, the Land Use Board approved the modified single‑family plan for 44 Miller Street (LUB‑25‑10) with conditions including a deed restriction to maintain single‑family status, no unshielded lighting, a non‑habitable lower level and engineering review of vehicle circulation.
The Borough of Highlands Land Use Board voted to approve a modified single‑family application for 44 Miller Street (LUB‑25‑10) after extensive review of engineering and planning comments and negotiated conditions.
Counsel for the applicant, Brad, said the project was revised to remove a previous two‑family design and to respond to comments from the board’s engineer and planner. Architect Jim Bailey and the applicant (identified in the record as Mark Lamp Green) answered technical questions about a lower‑level garage area, building height, and setbacks. Board members and professionals asked the applicant to provide vehicle‑circulation plans for the four‑bay lower garage, to eliminate or modify one garage bay (the applicant agreed to convert the first bay to a non‑vehicular space with French doors and a 10‑foot depth), and to show shielding and placement for exterior lighting to avoid spill onto neighboring properties.
The board and applicant agreed to the following conditions recorded in the hearing: a deed restriction confirming single‑family use; the lowest level limited to non‑habitable storage/garage use and no plumbing or bathrooms in that level; no unshielded or spotlight lighting that spills onto adjacent homes; engineering‑approved vehicle‑circulation drawings for garage bays prior to building permits; landscape and planter modifications on Miller Street to reduce sidewalk intrusion; compliance with the borough fence ordinance with full details to engineer satisfaction; and elimination of a rear curb cut and prohibition of a garage under the rear deck (both added as application conditions).
Several professionals had recommended additional mitigation: the borough planner and engineer urged removing one floor or reducing visual bulk, careful attention to setbacks on the corner lot, and full details on fencing and lighting. The applicant agreed to several modifications in response to those comments.
Public comment included a neighbor in support who said the revised design would better fit the neighborhood.
The board voted on the motion to approve after conditions were placed on the resolution; roll‑call votes recorded 'yes' votes with one board member explicitly adding “with deed restrictions.” The project will return to the board if substantive changes are made to the approved plans.
What happens next: Applicant must submit the required engineering circulation plan, updated plans showing the agreed garage/door changes and lighting controls, and deed‑restriction paperwork before the building department completes permit review.
