A resident voiced concerns about water runoff affecting their property due to elevation differences with their neighbor. The resident detailed how significant rainfall resulted in standing water—up to four inches deep—in their backyard, which they feared could cause structural damage to their home. They described the issue as a “river” flowing alongside their house, exacerbated by a drain pipe that directed water from the neighbor’s property directly onto theirs. The resident expressed frustration over failed attempts to resolve the issue amicably, stating, “there’s not a chance” of reaching an agreement with their neighbor.

In response, board members acknowledged the severity of the flooding concerns and suggested residents consider mediation. One board member reminded attendees that the board is not equipped to resolve such disputes, instead directing them to a mediation process available through the township. The affected resident confirmed that they had contacted the township engineer about the issue roughly a year ago, though the outcome remained unclear.

When questioned about the township engineer’s involvement, the resident noted that only a code enforcement officer had visited their property. The board advised them to re-engage with the township engineer for a comprehensive assessment. Meanwhile, the neighbor accused of causing the flooding attributed the issue to an isolated incident with a hose explosion, arguing that the problem had been resolved and was not ongoing. They recounted efforts to maintain good neighborly relations.

The affected resident countered that multiple alterations on the neighbor’s property, such as a basketball court and patio, had impeded natural drainage, directing more runoff onto their property. They emphasized that water hitting these surfaces had “no chance to soak into the ground,” which increased the runoff burden on their yard. The board suggested postponing the application to allow the township engineer to evaluate the properties and report on the flooding issues, with the next hearing scheduled for March 5, 2025. Both parties were encouraged to facilitate the engineer’s visit to ensure a thorough investigation.

The meeting then shifted focus to other applications, including the approval of a variance for Greg Fante’s porch addition on BR Drive. Fante sought permission for an open porch, slightly exceeding coverage limits but meeting all setback requirements. His application received unanimous approval, with acknowledgment of his community contributions, particularly his involvement with the fire department.

Another noteworthy application involved AW Contractor LLC, represented by David Penel, who sought to construct a new house on Old Bloomfield Avenue. The proposed house would adhere to setback requirements despite the lot width falling short of zoning stipulations. Concerns arose over the new house’s fit within the neighborhood, given its two-story design compared to the predominantly single-story neighboring homes. Penel explained that economic considerations necessitated a larger design. Despite acknowledging the hardship due to lot width constraints, the board moved to approve the application, recognizing its potential to improve the neighborhood.

Subsequently, Andrea and Robert Goin sought approval to replace their chain-link fence with a vinyl one. The board clarified fencing regulations, confirming that the front yard designation applied despite the house’s orientation. With no objections from board members or the audience, the application was approved unanimously, allowing the Goins to proceed with obtaining permits at the next board meeting.

The board also reviewed applications from the United Methodist Church and Danny Realy, both of which were approved swiftly, along with an application from Andreia for an 8 by 8-foot front porch. The board’s inquiry confirmed that the porch would remain an open space, and the variance was granted without further discussion.

Additionally, Russell and Joan Brick’s request for a variance to add a second garage and expand their driveway was approved. The board noted potential issues concerning a chain-link fence that appeared to encroach on the property line but emphasized that this issue fell outside their scope of review.

In a related matter, Dave and Tess Lewis addressed a long-standing basketball court on their property installed without a permit. A neighbor’s drainage concerns linked to the court triggered the review process. The board balanced the applicants’ requests against neighbors’ concerns.