The most critical discussion revolved around a homeowner’s proposal to construct a garage for antique cars. The board’s deliberation focused on an existing easement held by JCP&L, which was causing frustration for the homeowner due to the uncertainty and potential financial implications of the delay. The proposal underscored the need for the homeowner to secure approval from the power company to move forward with the garage construction. The homeowner, who was receptive to the board’s suggestions, agreed to contact the construction office and JCP&L to seek resolution. The board decided to reconvene in 30 days to review any progress made in obtaining the necessary approvals. The homeowner’s existing shed, which was also within close proximity to the power line easement, was discussed, raising questions about permits and potential conflicts with JCP&L. The board advised the homeowner to address these issues as well.

Moreover, another case involved a separate homeowner who sought to relocate and expand a shed on their property to create more space for family gatherings and accommodate religious customs. The board discovered that the shed had been constructed without the necessary permits and was located under overhead power lines. The board advised the applicant to obtain approval from JCP&L before proceeding with any changes to the shed’s location and size. They also allowed for public questions or comments regarding the application.

The board also grappled with a structure used for storage on another property. The owner had proposed modifying the structure by altering the roof to reduce coverage calculations. However, there were concerns about the height and impact on neighboring properties. The board requested pictures of the structure for review and decided to carry the matter to the next meeting, asking for the submission of the pictures in advance.

Members debated whether they could approve a structure without JCP&L’s approval and expressed concerns about potential liability if such approval led to issues with the power lines. There was a consensus on the need for outside agency approval as a condition for their own approval to mitigate potential liability. The discussion also highlighted a lack of awareness of power line easements in applications and the risk of approving structures that may not comply with such restrictions.

In addition to these discussions, the board addressed routine matters, such as the approval of two resolutions for specific applications. However, these proceedings did not command the same level of attention as the cases involving JCP&L easements.