The most debated application was by Chad Rosback, who proposed subdividing a 32,000 square foot lot into two 16,000 square foot lots, located on 41st Street. Rosback, who has owned the property for 14 years, expressed a need to build a new home for his family while retaining the existing house for rental or sale. The proposal required several variances due to the lot size falling short of the R20 Zone’s 20,000 square foot requirement and rear yard setbacks. The engineer, Paul J. Fletcher, detailed the property’s layout, including the proximity to a gas pipeline, which drew safety concerns from the board.

The board members scrutinized the subdivision’s compliance with zoning laws and the adequacy of public water and sewer connections. They questioned the applicant’s ability to obtain public water for the new lot, as evidence from the water department was lacking. This led to suggestions for redesigning the project to yield at least one conforming lot, which would better align with zoning standards. The discussion also underscored the importance of verifying the proposed plans against township regulations before making any decisions.

The public discussion featured Cynthia Bacon, who opposed the subdivision of a conforming lot into two non-conforming lots next to her mother’s home. Bacon emphasized her family’s long-standing connection to the community and raised concerns about safety, particularly the risks associated with a nearby gas pipeline. She argued that zoning regulations should not be compromised and that building a larger home on the existing lot would be a more sensible solution.

Another application involved a property on Hamilton Street, where the proposal aimed to create two lots from an oversized one. The planner argued that subdividing the lot would be more beneficial, promoting public health and increasing housing stock. However, board members were skeptical, questioning the necessity and benefits of creating two non-conforming lots over maintaining one compliant lot. They highlighted the absence of visual aids, which hindered their ability to evaluate the application thoroughly.

Public opposition to the Hamilton Street proposal was strong, with residents voicing concerns about the potential disruption to their neighborhood’s character and privacy. Edith Baran and Bill Carell expressed fears that new construction would negatively impact their living conditions and property values. The board sought clear evidence from the applicant to justify the variances requested, which was notably absent, leading to a motion to deny the application.

Board members emphasized the importance of maintaining the character of neighborhoods and ensuring that any new developments align with existing regulations. The lack of compelling testimony and supporting evidence from applicants was a recurring issue, ultimately influencing the board’s decisions.