28:58A significant portion of the meeting revolved around the safety concerns regarding a storage tank at Germunk Oil, located on Finderan Avenue. The township engineer reported observing the tank during a site visit, noting it was stamped for 275 gallons and raised alarms about its current placement and condition. The engineer highlighted that the tank was situated in an area with potential environmental risks if a leak occurred, given it was half full at the time of inspection. The primary concern centered around the valve at the tank’s bottom, which posed a leakage risk of hazardous materials into the surrounding neighborhood. It was stressed that, “it should not continue in the location that it’s currently existing.”

The applicant’s attorney argued that “every gas station has one of these tanks” and suggested they lacked the authority to move it without further approvals. This statement sparked debate among the board members, who expressed frustration over the lack of action taken since a previous meeting in March, where a request was made to relocate the tank. The attorney could not explain why the tank remained in its current state, prompting the board to reiterate the importance of meeting safety standards.

32:12The township engineer advised relocating the tank to a paved area where fuel operations occur, secured with a fence to prevent tampering. The board urged the applicant to take immediate action to mitigate the risk posed to the adjacent residential area. Discussions ensued about specific steps to address these concerns, with the board emphasizing the urgency of the situation. An extension was requested by the applicant to allow time to address the issues, which was met with tentative approval. A timeline was set, proposing a hearing by May 27th for the applicant to demonstrate compliance and ensure safety, with additional provisions for the tank’s future storage to be addressed in the application.

09:28In another significant agenda item, the board reviewed a residential land development application for a property on Brown Road. The application, presented by a consulting engineer and planner, sought a lot coverage variance for a patio constructed at the rear of a single-family home. The planner explained the property’s significant elevation change and the impact of the hillside development ordinance, which restricted the buildable area. The new patio, replacing an old deck, exceeded the allowable coverage due to the ordinance’s calculations.

42:40Board members questioned the safety of the original deck and the retaining wall’s integrity, with the planner confirming that the deck had rotting planks posing safety risks and that the retaining wall was properly constructed to manage runoff. The board also inquired about the patio’s impact on adjacent properties and the tree canopy. The planner assured the board that no trees were disturbed and the improvements directed runoff away from neighbors. The board acknowledged the challenges of the hillside ordinance and expressed sympathy for residents like the applicant, affected by its requirements. The variance was approved unanimously.

39:41The meeting also addressed the township’s annual report, highlighting concerns about the fee structure for “simple variance applications.” The board discussed how the fees could accumulate unexpectedly for residents, leading to dissatisfaction. It was noted that the fee schedule did not differentiate between C variances and D variances, despite differences in processing requirements. The board suggested revising the fee schedule to provide clearer cost expectations upfront, preventing residents from experiencing unexpected expenses.