0:00The board’s discussion on procedural delays highlighted a recurring problem with the Israel Burn Bound Muse Variant 3490 application, which has been postponed multiple times. This repeated rescheduling prompted frustration among board members, who acknowledged the potential risks associated with further delays, especially concerning the safety of existing structures. Concerns were voiced about the implications of ongoing postponements, with suggestions to implement a rule limiting the number of times an application can be postponed. Mr. Hudak emphasized the need for a standard procedure, proposing a rule that after three postponements, an application should be withdrawn. This suggestion sparked a dialogue on the legalities and fairness of such a rule, with the board agreeing to discuss these procedural changes in executive session.

1:57:54The board also tackled an application for variances on Enderio Road, where residents expressed concerns about water drainage exacerbated by new construction. The proposed project seeks variances for lot area and depth, with the applicant planning to build a two-story colonial-style house. Residents voiced apprehensions about the impact of the construction on the rural character of the area and existing drainage issues. A local resident, Elizabeth L. Roza, criticized the potential increase in traffic and drainage challenges, describing the street as a “river” during rainstorms. Glenn De Vuy shared similar concerns, questioning the wisdom of building on an undersized lot given the pre-existing water runoff problems.

1:38:32The board’s deliberation on the application included extensive discussion on road improvements and whether to require the applicant to widen Indiero Road to meet local ordinance standards. The board debated whether the road’s current width sufficed under Rural Street standards, ultimately weighing the benefits of adhering to local standards against the practicalities of existing conditions.

1:57:54Additionally, the board scrutinized the implications of granting variances for undersized lots, referencing legal requirements and past cases like the Doll Meer case. The board evaluated the applicant’s efforts to address drainage concerns, including the installation of a new septic system compliant with Ocean County Health Department regulations and the proposal of a dry well to manage runoff. Despite these measures, residents remained skeptical about the construction’s impact on water management and safety.

Concerns extended to the potential disruption caused by possible future road improvements, such as curbs and sidewalks, which could interfere with existing drainage patterns. The board acknowledged these concerns but clarified their role in reviewing variance applications based on zoning criteria, emphasizing that broader drainage issues would need to be addressed by the township.

2:38:51They acknowledged the limitations of their authority regarding ongoing drainage issues, urging residents to continue voicing their concerns to the township. The board ultimately approved the variances with conditions, including contributions to a pedestrian safety fund in lieu of constructing curbs and sidewalks, signaling their effort to address both legal requirements and community apprehensions.