The most contentious topic of the meeting centered around the subdivision proposal involving the creation of three single-family residential lots from a 6.5-acre vacant property. Concerns were raised about the visibility at a critical intersection, where the road’s curvature could obstruct the sight lines for drivers. A board member highlighted the blind spot at the intersection, where vehicles traveling at 50 miles per hour could pose a danger. This prompted discussions on the need for clear sight triangles, with suggestions to adjust the roadway or remove obstructive trees to improve safety. The board emphasized the importance of maintaining visibility standards as per the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines but remained concerned about the practical implications of the road’s curvature.

A proposal to involve a traffic engineer for further evaluation was made, although the board acknowledged that the subdivision’s minor classification typically doesn’t necessitate a full traffic study. Despite this, the board members showed willingness to request additional information should safety concerns persist.

The discussion also touched upon the subdivision’s stormwater management plan, which includes a retention basin and dry wells for each lot. The homeowners association (HOA) would maintain these facilities, and board members stressed the importance of ensuring homeowners are fully informed of their responsibilities to avoid future issues. The plan’s compliance with stormwater regulations was examined, with assurances that the retention basin was designed to accommodate future developments like patios or decks without additional stormwater systems.

Parking and road infrastructure were also key points of discussion. The subdivision plan features a new public road, “Road A,” connecting to Ramtown Greenville Road, with provisions for parking on one side to facilitate emergency vehicle access. Streetlights and signage for the new road were discussed, with recommendations to enhance safety at intersections. Concerns about parking congestion in nearby neighborhoods were raised, emphasizing the need to ensure adequate parking provisions in the new development.

Environmental considerations were addressed, particularly regarding the need for soil testing due to the property’s agricultural history. The applicant agreed to conduct phase two soil testing to comply with regulations. The board requested additional information on the type of houses to be built, specifically regarding basements and their potential impact on drainage systems.

The board decided to carry the case forward to the November 6, 2025, meeting, allowing the applicant time to gather the necessary documentation and address the board’s concerns.

In other business, the board briefly discussed updates to the township’s master plan, noting that there were no formal challenges to the housing plan by the deadline. While additional information was still required by Fair Share, the board expressed confidence in their position and readiness to make necessary amendments in the coming months.