The central issue of the meeting revolved around the application filed by Renie and Kathleen Baran, who sought variances for keeping goats and chickens on a non-farm lot. The board examined the details of the property, which included various structures such as sheds, carports, a chicken coop, a pool, and a deck. The board’s inquiries centered on the installation dates of these structures, permit statuses, and the potential need for variances due to setback requirements.

A significant part of the discussion focused on the goats’ presence on the property, their care, and their role as therapeutic animals for the Barans’ son, who has neurofibromatosis type one and ADHD. Kathleen Baran, an educator with a degree in psychology, testified to the positive impact of the goats on her son’s well-being, stating that their removal would be devastating for their family. The board also examined photographs of the goats, their enclosure, and the property’s topography, which included a historical farmstead.

The board further addressed the zoning ordinance’s limitations on the keeping and raising of livestock and the potential issues with animal smell and fur. The board considered the planner’s comments, which included odor concerns related to the goats and the number of chickens allowed on the property. Despite these concerns, the board discussed the possibility of relocating the carports to comply with setback requirements and the removal of a fence located within the right-of-way.

Tara Kenyon, a professional planner, provided testimony regarding the property’s suitability for keeping goats. She argued that the property satisfied the intent and purpose of the zoning, which allowed related agricultural uses on a 3-acre lot. Kenyon referenced research from Extension Agencies to support the sufficiency of space for the goats on the property, although there was contention regarding the minimum acreage requirement established by the township.

The board debated the need for a conservation easement and its relationship to the site plan and subdivision. They also scrutinized the evidence presented, raising questions about the medical professional’s opinion on the necessity of the goats and the specific requirements for agricultural use in the area.

The property owner discussed the historical and agricultural nature of the property, emphasizing its uniqueness and suitability for housing animals. The board members raised concerns about compliance with setback requirements for the goat enclosure, chicken coop, and carports. The property owner explained the challenges and historical context that would make relocating the structures difficult.

Moreover, the board deliberated over the environmental concerns, such as potential pollution from animal manure and the request for a livestock waste management plan. The debate culminated in the board voting to grant the relief requested by the Barans, subject to conditions that included the management of livestock waste and adherence to setback requirements.

In a separate matter, the board addressed an application submitted by Mr. McCrae for a variance related to a proposed storage facility on Amwell Road, Flemington. He sought to build a storage facility for personal and household items on his property, which required variances for the size and location of the building. After objections from a neighbor and discussions about the building’s height and proximity to neighboring properties, the board suggested a continuance to allow for possible relocation and size reduction of the building. The matter was continued to January 5th, with no further notice required.