The Puititz family’s application for variance was a focal point of the meeting. Represented by attorney Michael Silbert, the family sought to formalize the use of their property for both residential and commercial purposes, which had been ongoing for nearly five decades. Silbert emphasized that the business, which operates from a two-story single-family home and a commercial structure on the property, had historically been viewed as a lawful home occupation. However, a zoning violation issued in December 2024, prompted by a neighbor’s complaint, classified the business as an impermissible home occupation due to its scale.

Silbert argued that the business had operated without complaints or enforcement actions until the recent violation, which he attributed to an external property maintenance issue. He underscored the long-standing acceptance of the business’s operations and questioned the fairness of suddenly deeming it unlawful after decades of compliance. Silbert pointed to a recorded subdivision plat from the early 1990s as evidence of the township’s awareness and implied approval of the business. Despite incomplete historical records, the absence of prior complaints supported the argument for the business’s legitimacy.

The board deliberated on the business’s operational scope, particularly regarding its classification as a “home-based business.” Photographs presented during the meeting depicted a substantial commercial presence, with visible trucks, sheds, and materials, challenging the notion of a residential-scale operation. The applicant’s representative acknowledged the discrepancy, leading to a discussion on the property’s historical and current conditions.

Board members expressed concerns about the potential intensification of the property’s use, especially regarding vehicle numbers and outdoor storage. It was noted that the business operates with a limited number of employees and does not host customers on-site, which mitigates traffic and noise concerns. The board sought assurances that the business would not expand in a way that would impact the residential character of the area. Conditions proposed included limiting operating hours, restricting the number of employees, and prohibiting new signage or lighting.

The testimony also highlighted drainage conditions on the property, with the owner asserting a stable history of no complaints or issues. The board considered the impact of the property on surrounding areas and discussed potential conditions to ensure responsible future use. The owner expressed willingness to work with the board on conditions that would bind future owners to maintain the property’s current operation level.

During public comments, a neighboring resident, Derek Ba, expressed support for the business, noting minimal disruption and a positive relationship with the operators. His testimony reinforced the notion that the business had integrated well into the community without causing issues.

The board emphasized the importance of preventing any future intensification of use and ensuring that the property remained consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood.

In addition to the Puititz application, the board addressed other zoning items, including the scheduling of the next meeting and the dismissal of another application, Belly Holdings, due to escrow deficiencies.