The board’s discussion on the NVR Inc Ryan Homes application for new entrance signs was particularly focused on regulatory compliance. The applicant sought variance approval for two permanent signs within the 30-foot required buffer, as well as for a 15-foot setback to each frontage where 20 feet was typically required. Board members underscored the township’s strict adherence to buffer regulations and the importance of maintaining safety standards, particularly regarding sight triangles and safe ingress and egress for homes. The applicant’s willingness to adjust the sign locations to comply with the buffer and site triangle requirements was noted, and after further discussion on the design and dimensions of the signs, the application was approved with conditions to adhere to the buffer and site triangle regulations.

A more complex issue was the use variance approval sought by Stanley Krilla for his property, which involved constructing an addition to an existing single-family dwelling and a pool. The property, which had undergone rehabilitation due to water and mold damage, was approximately 2.8 acres in size. The proposed addition included a new swimming pool, patio, walkways, generator pad, fencing, and paving for the existing gravel parking. During the meeting, board members queried Krilla about the necessity of the addition and the impact on the property. Despite some concerns about the scope of the project, the board was generally supportive.

The debate intensified when discussing the property’s pole barn, used by Mr. Kryler for personal car storage and later for commercial storage, accommodating approximately 90 cars. The board grappled with whether the property’s use was primarily commercial, given the scale of the car storage operation and the need for a parking lot, which had implications for impervious coverage and zoning regulations. The historical context of the application was debated, including whether the township should have considered it differently in 2015. The board contemplated deed restrictions and conditions tied to ownership to prevent future problems, alongside potential stormwater management improvements proposed by the project engineer.

Allison Coffin, a licensed professional planner, presented the case for the renovation and expansion of the property. She argued that the variances requested for the pre-existing non-conforming use and the presence of two buildings on one lot were justifiable, asserting that they would not detriment surrounding properties. The board members discussed safety concerns and the potential for oil or gas leaks, expressing the need for a fire suppression system in the pole barn. Ultimately, the application was approved with the inclusion of a deed restriction for future property ownership and the stipulation that the new owner must seek reaffirmation of the property’s use.

In other discussions, the board addressed the relocation of a sign for a residential development, which was supported by the members and approved with conditions. Concerns were raised about the sign’s visibility and its impact on homeowners, but the consensus was that the identification sign’s benefits outweighed any detriments.