The board evaluated an application involving a variance for a pole barn that exceeded the township’s permitted size and height. The property owner aimed to construct a pole barn planned to serve as a vertical garden and storage space. The proposed height and square footage of the structure necessitated the variance, sparking a discussion on the implications for the surrounding community. Concerns about setting a precedent and overdevelopment in the residential area were prominent, with public input highlighting the risks of establishing a new norm for building dimensions. The property owner’s intention to provide a community benefit through the vertical garden by donating produce to neighbors was noted.

In an intricate case, the board faced a pool patio that was constructed 2.22 feet within the required 15-foot setback from the property line. The applicant, Joe Ellen Hennessy, had originally submitted plans indicating compliance with the setback, but the constructed patio did not meet the requirement. The situation sparked a debate over the responsibility for the error and the need for the applicant to modify the patio to adhere to the regulation. The board and the applicant explored various solutions, including adjusting the patio’s layout. The board ultimately dismissed the application without prejudice, allowing for the possibility of reapplication in the future.

Further discussions revolved around the challenges presented by a property where construction had already commenced. Unexpected discovery of gas pipes and electric lines necessitated alterations to the building’s footprint and design, leading to a flattened foundation and the elimination of notches at each corner of the addition. The board engaged in a detailed review of whether these changes required an amended foundation location and if the addition of a deck without a permit was a violation. The applicant’s lack of awareness about the need for a permit for the deck installation was a point of contention, as was the process of approving changes to the construction.

The board also grappled with the classification of certain structures on a property, including a gazebo and a shed. Questions arose about whether these structures complied with zoning permits. The discussion extended to the definition of what constitutes a structure and the implications for zoning permits. Accurate measurements of existing structures were deemed essential for determining the extent of the variance required for a proposed pole barn.

The meeting further addressed an application for a c variance for a generator placement within a required principal building side yard setback, and another for constructing a pool within the 15-foot setback. Both cases emphasized the importance of zoning compliance and the board’s role in adjudicating such matters.