The resident’s query brought to light the complexities surrounding home agriculture within the township, specifically the inconsistencies resulting from amendments to the 2010 master plan. Initially, the plan permitted home agriculture in all zones except the VC. However, subsequent amendments in 2011 and 2012 inadvertently restricted these activities in the VHR zone as well. This prompted a former zoning officer, Richard Price, to suggest that the governing body should clarify their position regarding home agriculture practices across different zones, especially given the smaller lot sizes and closer proximity of homes in the VHR and VC zones compared to others.

Board members acknowledged the distinctive challenges faced by residents in these zones, where chickens and other forms of home agriculture could potentially lead to conflicts due to limited space. Anecdotes were shared regarding neighbors’ chickens escaping and causing damage to nearby properties, highlighting the need for clear regulations to minimize disputes. The board also considered the noise issue, particularly from roosters, with some members suggesting that stricter regulations might be necessary compared to those for hens.

There was a consensus on the importance of establishing consistent guidelines for chicken keeping across the township. These guidelines would aim to balance the interests of residents wishing to engage in home agriculture with the concerns of those impacted by unregulated activities. The board discussed potential measures, such as restricting free-ranging chickens and setting criteria that would ensure practices do not disrupt neighboring properties.

The need for consistency in regulations was emphasized, with suggestions to look at how other municipalities manage similar issues. The idea was to gather information that could guide the board in formulating a clear, township-wide framework. Additionally, members highlighted the necessity of a transition period for current residents engaged in poultry keeping, allowing them time to adjust to any new regulations.

While the chicken coop discussion was a focal point, the meeting also addressed several other resolutions and items of business. Among these was the approval of Resolution PB390-24 concerning Cranberry Housing Associates, which passed without any comments or questions. Similarly, PB406-25, related to the RDC master site plan approval for rooftop solar, was approved following the same pattern of unanimous consent.

Resolution PB49-25, involving Cranberry Senior Apartments LLC, sparked a discussion about reducing the number of proposed electric vehicle (EV) parking spots from twelve to six. The adjustment was made to allocate more land for landscaping without affecting parking availability. After the amendments, the resolution was unanimously approved.

Another item on the agenda was Resolution PB407-25 concerning Bat Properties LLC, involving a minor subdivision with variances. This resolution also passed with unanimous approval after confirming no comments or corrections were needed.

In the realm of old and new business, the board reviewed proposed meeting dates for 2026, which were mostly consistent with previous schedules but included adjustments for holidays and school breaks. The zoning subcommittee provided updates on their ongoing efforts to schedule discussions on design guidelines, particularly as they pertain to the historical preservation committee. It was noted that these guidelines would be presented back to the planning board upon completion.

Lastly, new business included a request from the township committee to review proposed changes regarding the allowance of farm animals in residential zones, which will be revisited in depth at a future meeting. The board emphasized the importance of preparing for this upcoming discussion, recognizing the potential implications of any changes on the community.