Jesse Chen’s application detailed a request for a variance concerning her property’s privacy fence, which extends to a height of 15.5 feet in certain sections, exceeding the standard 6-foot limit set by local ordinances. The fence was constructed in response to privacy concerns, particularly from a security camera installed by a neighbor, which Chen described as intrusive. She testified, “The reason why you constructed a fence at this height is really to ensure safety, privacy, protection from your neighbors,” underscoring her distress over the surveillance and the neighbor’s alleged behavior, including peering through windows and calling out to her.

The board’s deliberation included assessing the compliance of the fence with local zoning regulations. They evaluated whether the steep slopes and elevated deck on Chen’s property justified the increased fence height, with Chen arguing that the unique topographical features necessitated a taller structure for privacy. The board also considered the fence’s structural integrity.

Though the neighbor who lodged complaints about the fence’s height was not present to testify, the board considered the potential aesthetic and community impacts of the fence. A discussion ensued on whether the height compromised community harmony, to which Chen asserted, “The fence increased the value of the property,” suggesting the neighborhood benefitted from her enhanced privacy. Board members debated the broader implications of setting a precedent for approving such a tall fence, balancing Chen’s privacy needs against maintaining local ordinance standards.

One resident noted that the fence did not detract from the neighborhood’s aesthetics, describing it as “aesthetically pleasing and of good quality.” Another resident highlighted the ongoing conflict with the neighbor.

In light of the discussions, the board ultimately agreed on several conditions for approving the variance. These included the acquisition of a formal permit, the maintenance of the fence to prevent disrepair, and a post-installation inspection by the township engineer to ensure structural soundness. The board recognized the specific circumstances of Chen’s application, acknowledging the privacy issues posed by the neighbor’s security camera and the property’s sloped terrain.

As the meeting concluded, the board members voted in favor of the application, with several expressing their support for Chen’s efforts to secure her property and privacy.

In addition to the Chen application, other routine business was addressed, including the discussion of pending applications such as those from 821 Bridgewater LLC and the Jewish Community Center, which were carried to future meetings. The board also reviewed minor amendments to the Senior Life resolution, which were unanimously approved after correcting typographical errors. However, these matters were secondary to the privacy fence deliberations, which dominated the board’s agenda and public interest.