The most notable topic at the meeting was the subdivision’s implications for local agricultural zoning and environmental regulations. The application submitted for the estate of Harriet E. Derling sought to create a buildable lot, allowing residential development while preserving the majority of the land for agricultural use. Represented by an attorney, the applicant emphasized compliance with the goals of the Hillsborough Master Plan, which supports a balance between residential development and the preservation of agricultural land to prevent urban sprawl.

The application included a request to modify existing setback requirements in the Agricultural Zone (AG zone). Specifically, the applicant proposed reducing the side yard setback from 75 feet to 50 feet and the minimum front yard setback from 150 feet to 75 feet. This request was bolstered by referencing criteria from the AG zone and highlighting alternative development options, such as open lands or conservation subdivisions, although these were not pursued in this case.

A key point of concern was the need for a variance to cross a stream corridor for driveway access to Willer Road. While no streams exist on the site, a drainage feature necessitates this crossing, and the applicant argued that accessing the lot without disturbing the stream corridor was unfeasible. They proposed a conservation easement to comply with township code.

Another issue was the waiver request for tree mitigation ordinances. The applicant explained that the lot’s established shape resulted from prior farmland preservation negotiations, making it impossible to avoid disturbing existing trees. The board discussed the financial implications of tree removal, estimated at $50,000, due to required replacements based on the number and size of trees removed. The applicant sought a complete waiver of these obligations, arguing that the regulations were not in place during the original 2006 agreements. They noted the hardship imposed by the agricultural easement, which limits development flexibility.

The board’s planner expressed agreement on certain points, especially concerning stormwater management, emphasizing that mitigation should ensure that peak flows do not exceed existing conditions. The township’s new non-major development ordinance requires such considerations.

The meeting also addressed the historical context of local zoning regulations, particularly changes made in 2003 and 2005 related to stream corridors and agricultural zones. A participant highlighted the permanence of SADC’s (State Agriculture Development Committee) exception areas.

During public comments, the board invited questions regarding testimony from the project’s engineer, who detailed the subdivision’s procedural aspects and implications. A planner later outlined the project’s alignment with the township’s objectives for land use management and agricultural preservation.

Board members unanimously approved the application, subject to conditions discussed, including adherence to tree removal limits and compliance with relevant regulations. The approval underscores a collaborative effort to ensure development aligns with community goals, maintaining farmland, and addressing potential environmental impacts from residential construction.