12:05A point of discussion involved an application with concerns over drainage issues, brought to the board’s attention by Susan Steel, a resident on Lakeside Drive South. Steel expressed apprehension about potential drainage problems from a proposed construction project near her property. She highlighted the issue of sump pump discharge being planned for a location close to her house, raising fears of increased water runoff due to the project’s additional impervious coverage. Steel inquired about the drainage leaders’ location and the presence of a perimeter drain pipe to manage water flow.

In response to Steel’s concerns, board members and representatives explained that the project’s grading and slope orientation had been thoroughly reviewed. They assured her that the sump pump’s discharge would not pose a structural threat to her foundation. They also acknowledged the potential for increased water runoff due to the larger roof surface area but emphasized that the engineering review included multiple scrutiny levels to address drainage concerns. The township’s engineering team would oversee compliance with approved grading and drainage plans to ensure no adverse effects on neighboring properties.

The board considered a suggestion to condition the approval on orienting the drainage leaders to direct runoff away from Steel’s property, which members agreed upon. Despite Steel’s concerns, the application had already received board approval, and the meeting transitioned to other agenda items.

0:28Another issue discussed was the approval of a variance application for a semi-inground pool requested by Tyler B. from 12 Grar C Drive. He sought to place the pool eight feet from the property line instead of the required ten feet, citing convenience due to existing gas lines. Tyler also requested permission to install pool equipment in the side yard, arguing that logistic constraints with gas and electric lines made alternative placements difficult. The board suggested relocating the equipment to minimize noise disturbance for neighbors, but Tyler confirmed he had already consulted with the affected neighbor, who voiced no concerns. Agreeing to screen the equipment with fencing or landscaping, Tyler’s application received unanimous approval.

The board also deliberated on an application from Kenneth J. Pine, who sought a variance for a six-foot fence not conforming to a 25-foot setback requirement. Pine explained that the fence had existed throughout his residence and had been replaced once. A staff representative noted that the fence was two feet from the property line and discussed the implications of a temporary construction easement involving the fence and landscaping. Pine agreed to easement conditions, and with no public comments, the board unanimously supported his application.

Additionally, the board reviewed applications related to Ronco Development, originally scheduled for discussion but postponed to April 2025. Another application involved K Yen, who sought to rebuild a house on Lakeside Drive South after demolition. Although specifics were limited, the board began discussions on zoning requirements for the rebuild.

12:05The session concluded with the adoption of resolutions from the previous regular meeting, where various property and entity approvals were confirmed through unanimous roll call votes.