Attorney Scott Good, representing ARCR Properties LLC, presented the main application, seeking a variance for minimum lot frontage on the vacant property identified as block 5702 lot 55. The proposed home, approximately 2,900 square feet with three bedrooms and three bathrooms, would be accessed via a narrow driveway instead of a designated 50-foot right-of-way easement that traverses neighboring properties. The applicant argued that using the driveway would preserve good neighborly relations and avoid disrupting the use of the existing easement.

However, the lot’s 10 feet of street frontage starkly contrasts the township’s requirement of 150 feet, raising significant safety concerns, particularly regarding emergency vehicle access. The proposed driveway, approximately 970 feet long without a turnaround, was scrutinized for its practicality in accommodating emergency vehicles. Despite assurances from a professional engineer, Mr. Denny, that the driveway would be constructed with a graded aggregate subbase to support emergency vehicles, board members highlighted potential difficulties for fire trucks, typically measuring 104 inches wide, in navigating the narrow path amidst surrounding trees.

Residents expressed vehement opposition to the variance. Tina Coel of White Tail Pass underscored that the variance undermines the intent of the zoning ordinance, citing concerns over privacy, property values, and drainage issues. Coel stressed that the development could exacerbate existing water problems, providing a pathway for water runoff. She also questioned the legality of building homes near protected easements.

Similarly, Scott Stinsman of Main Road voiced worries about the proposed easement invading his property rights and impacting family activities, particularly the safety of his grandchildren. Kimberly Henson, also of Main Road, raised alarms about increased traffic and public safety, arguing that the existing road conditions are ill-equipped to handle additional congestion, especially given ongoing construction in the area. Environmental concerns, such as potential damage to local ecosystems and increased water runoff, were also highlighted.

Karen Nicodemus, another Main Road resident, expressed confusion over easement ownership and access rights, recounting past assurances from township officials. She emphasized her love for the community’s tranquility and existing water issues that could worsen with further development. Tara Roids and Jessica Slates echoed concerns about overdevelopment, with Slates speculating that the variance could lead to increased density in an area currently characterized by spacious, wooded lots.

In response to the public feedback, a board member suggested tabling the application to allow time to explore alternative access options. The board agreed. The decision to table the application was communicated to the public, who were encouraged to return with further input at a later date.

Following the heated discussion on the ARCR Properties LLC application, the board addressed another variance request from Paul Burgess, who sought to construct a larger garage on his property on Proposed Avenue. Burgess proposed a 30×60-foot garage to store his vehicles and equipment, exceeding the standard 30×40-foot size. The proposed garage’s location in the front yard raised zoning concerns since pole barns are typically restricted to side or rear yards.

Residents voiced concerns about noise and traffic associated with the proposed garage. One nearby resident questioned the potential noise disruptions and increased traffic, emphasizing the neighborhood’s quiet nature and the presence of children and pets. Burgess responded that the garage would primarily serve to store his equipment and would not increase traffic.

The meeting also touched on procedural issues regarding a previously scheduled application for a property on Salem Avenue, which was not properly noticed and needed to be rescheduled. A board member emphasized the importance of proper notification to avoid confusion.

Some participants expressed frustration over the timing of the decision to postpone, highlighting concerns about transparency and communication between the board and the public. Board members clarified their role in navigating these applications while balancing community interests, wrapping up the meeting with plans for future discussions.