Central to the meeting’s discussions was a bulk variance relief application for a proposed single-family house, which faced scrutiny over its potential to exacerbate existing flooding issues and remove several trees. The applicant’s witnesses, including a professional engineer and a professional planner, presented revised plans which sought to address these concerns through measures such as the relocation of the driveway, addition of evergreens, rotation of the house, and a stormwater management system designed to include a dry basement.

However, community member Mr. Hurley, among others, expressed strong opposition to the development, citing the size of the proposed house relative to neighborhood averages, the impact on local flooding, and the removal of trees. In response to objections, the council and the applicant discussed potential solutions, including planting a double row of evergreen trees as a buffer and adding a six-foot-tall wood fence behind the buffer.

Another hot-button issue involved the distance between a well and the neighboring Kebler property, igniting debate over regulations dictating the minimum required distance between a well and a septic system. Concerns over water runoff affecting neighboring properties were voiced, with residents worried about the creation of hazardous ice conditions during winter.

Further complicating the matter, residents raised objections to the rezoning of a property by the municipality in 1987, which rendered the property non-conforming. The council debated the property owner’s responsibility for this non-conformity and considered whether the applicant had taken adequate steps to mitigate potential negative impacts. Some council members expressed concerns about creating a precedent for future developments and the need to demonstrate hardship when obtaining variances.

As part of the meeting, the council also heard from Crown Castle, which sought approval for installing 18 small cell nodes within the Six Flags Great Adventure Park. The company’s representatives explained that the nodes were intended to address capacity issues for T-Mobile users within the park. Despite concerns about public health and aesthetic impact, the proposal was defended by citing the need for improved telecommunications for the high volume of park users.

Additionally, the applicant agreed to install a fence on one side of a property for buffering purposes. This decision followed a 10-minute break, after which an application was carried over to a future date.

The meeting concluded with a lengthy debate on the proposed installation of telecommunication poles within a park, with concerns over their height, placement, and the possible precedent set for other carriers. Despite these concerns, the council approved the variance required for the installation, imposing conditions on the height, diameter, and FCC licensing of the users.