The most notable discussion centered on an application by Rodak Homes for constructing a new single-family house on Cartridge Road. The applicant requested a variance for a front yard setback of 44.7 feet, falling short of the required 50 feet, as well as a habitable floor area variance of 30.3% when only 21% is permitted. The depth of the lot, which was approximately 25 feet less than required, was a factor, pushing the construction closer to the front and raising compliance concerns among board members.

The architect provided plans, confirming that the new structure would improve upon the current conditions by setting the existing house back to 44.7 feet from the front, though still not meeting the 50-foot requirement. Board members scrutinized the porch and stairs, which extended beyond the proposed setback, violating regulations. The architect agreed to amend these plans, and with the rationale for the variances discussed, the application was approved unanimously.

Another application involved the construction of a new single-family house on Dorin Road, where variances were requested for both front yard setback and habitable floor area ratio. The undersized lot necessitated these variances. The board was informed that the proposal included a front yard setback of 45.72 feet and a habitable floor area ratio of 27%, exceeding the allowable 21% by 6%. The board and public questioned the potential impact on the neighborhood, leading to a discussion on the project’s justifiability.

Further discussions explored the complexities of a proposal for a residential project involving retaining walls and fencing due to topographical challenges. The height of the proposed aluminum rail fence and retaining walls was a primary concern. The retaining walls, proposed to be tiered, required variance approval due to their significant deviation from the municipal standards. The project was described as necessary for stormwater management and safety, rather than aesthetics. Residents expressed concerns over existing water issues and the potential impacts of the construction, which the board acknowledged, emphasizing that township professionals would review drainage plans.

Public participation was a notable aspect of the meeting, with residents voicing concerns about various applications. One resident, Ellen Okamoto, sought clarification on the proposed fence height, fearing it would exceed ordinance limits. She was reassured that the largest retaining wall on her side would be approximately four feet, and the fence would be about six feet in total. The board stressed the importance of compliance with fencing requirements and reiterated that no variances would be granted beyond code allowances.

In addition to these applications, the board addressed a proposal concerning patio construction and related setbacks. The applicant, Lavina Chowry, explained the need for a usable space in her uneven backyard, leading to a request for variances. Despite complications from having commenced construction, the board moved to approve the proposal, emphasizing the need to meet all code requirements.

The meeting also featured an application for a variance related to fence privacy, where applicants sought a solid fence for increased backyard privacy. The board advised against this, suggesting alternatives like shrubbery or a 50/50 fence design, which would align with town ordinances. The applicants agreed to modify their proposal to meet these recommendations.