The most notable issue revolved around a variance application for a property on Main Road, owned by Karen and Scott. The proposal involved a landlocked parcel behind homes, which required an easement established during a foreclosure to create access for a driveway. This easement was heavily scrutinized by residents, who questioned its legality under New Jersey state law, which prohibits the establishment of easements during foreclosure proceedings. Karen stated, “a legal easement cannot be created while an owner is in foreclosure because a foreclosure potentially can wipe out existing easements,” highlighting the potential invalidity of the easement. Her husband, Scott, corroborated her concerns, noting the easement’s establishment just days before the property was sold at a sheriff’s sale.

The public comments section was filled with opposition from residents, including Kevin Henson, who voiced concerns about notification issues. He argued that the notification process was inadequate and requested a postponement, citing insufficient time to prepare due to a late notice. Henson emphasized the importance of addressing homeowners’ questions before proceeding. Another resident, who remained unnamed, stressed the potential disruption to the local ecosystem, stating that the development “would upset the beautiful wildlife.”

Donald Wright, a resident of 105 Louis Court, echoed the sentiment, describing the lot as “100% natural” and warning that development would destroy the environment. He expressed skepticism about the developers’ motives. Brenda Brooks, who had lived in the neighborhood for 15 years, criticized the lack of communication and lateness of the notice, stating, “it appears that we don’t get information.”

The board engaged in a complex discussion about the easement’s legality and the variance’s implications, particularly regarding emergency vehicle access. A representative for the development insisted on the client’s right to access the property, emphasizing that the application sought only one bulk variance. However, board members were divided, debating the legality and fairness of the proposed changes.

Ultimately, a motion was made to deny the application. The vote was narrowly split, with three members in favor of denial, two against, and one abstaining. This led to initial confusion about whether the application had been officially denied. After a recess to clarify the voting process, it was confirmed that the application was indeed denied.

In addition to the Main Road development, the board also discussed a request for amendments to a site plan related to a cannabis facility. The applicant sought to maintain an existing chain-link fence instead of the originally specified decorative fence. The board considered implications for regulatory compliance, including a design waiver for gravel parking, which deviated from the ordinance requirement for paved surfaces. The applicant agreed to meet with the fire chief to address concerns about accessibility and fire safety.

Another agenda item involved a reapplication for property development on a 12.26-acre parcel known as lot 55. The discussion focused on emergency vehicle access via a narrow driveway and the use of an existing 50-foot wide access and utility easement over lot 54. Resident Kimberly Henson expressed strong opposition, citing safety concerns and inadequate notification. The representatives maintained that the easement, created in 2012, allowed for access and remained valid.