The primary focus of the meeting was an application submitted by Mr. Rosbach, who proposed subdividing his property to create two lots, one conforming and one non-compliant. This proposal aimed to facilitate the construction of a new single-family dwelling. Site engineer Mr. O’Brien presented the plan, emphasizing that it aligned with the township’s master plan by promoting housing diversity and infill development. However, the plan necessitated variances related to lot size, rear setbacks, and the proximity of a pipeline, which sparked concerns among board members and the public.

Dr. Chase and other board members expressed apprehensions about the safety implications of building near a pipeline, drawing parallels to previous incidents such as the Edison tragedy. Mr. O’Brien assured the board that modern safety measures and regular maintenance reduced risks, and he argued that the township’s setback ordinance might be outdated. Nevertheless, the board remained cautious, weighing the potential hazards against the development benefits.

The board’s debate extended to the merits of creating two undersized lots versus maintaining one conforming lot. While some members favored the original proposal of two equal lots, others were concerned about the minimal rear yard setback that would result, potentially affecting future residents. The revised plan, which proposed a smaller rear yard but ample side yard space, was defended by Mr. O’Brien as a reasonable compromise that respected neighborhood character.

Public opinion was divided, with several residents voicing opposition to the subdivision. Cynthia Bacon, a concerned local, argued that the existing lot could accommodate the desired home without necessitating a subdivision. She emphasized that the reduction in lot size was unnecessary and would create new variances, undermining the zoning regulations designed to preserve neighborhood integrity.

Another community member underscored the importance of adhering to zoning laws and raised questions about the transparency of the application process. They submitted documents challenging the proposal, including photographs and zoning permits, and critiqued the perceived attempt to create a non-conforming space that would later require additional variances. The speaker’s skepticism about the applicant’s intentions was echoed by others, who urged the board to prioritize community needs and desires.

The board ultimately voted against the subdivision proposal, with members emphasizing a commitment to upholding zoning codes and safeguarding the neighborhood’s character. Despite recognizing the applicant’s efforts to adjust the lot sizes, the majority concluded that the subdivision’s potential detriments outweighed its benefits.

In addition to the subdivision debate, the board also discussed a separate application concerning a church project. Ronald J. Sadowski, an engineer, presented revised site plans addressing prior concerns about parking and landscaping. The changes included reducing the number of parking spaces and increasing setbacks, aligning with township requirements and enhancing the site’s buffer zones. The board explored parking logistics extensively, particularly regarding the provision of electric vehicle charging stations and the impact of removing balcony seating on parking needs.

The church’s parking strategy, including a partnership with RPM for additional spaces during services, was scrutinized to ensure compliance with local ordinances. The board highlighted the necessity of enforceable conditions to manage parking effectively and prevent overcapacity during significant events.

As the meeting concluded, the board scheduled further discussions to address unresolved issues, particularly regarding parking requirements and the implications of the proposed changes. The next steps include continued examination of the church application and testimony from relevant experts.