The debate over shed regulations dominated much of the meeting, with board members discussing the implications of lot coverage and setback requirements for residential properties. The board explored the need for a maximum size limit for sheds, suggesting a 200-square-foot cap, which some members argued could effectively turn a shed into the size of a single-car garage. Concerns were raised about how such large structures could affect neighborhood aesthetics and property values. One member pointed out that, “if you want to put a 200 square foot shed on one of these small lots, they’re most likely going to infringe on setbacks and they’re going to have to come and get a variance for that lot coverage.”

The discussion also highlighted the need to balance practicality with regulatory enforcement. Board members expressed mixed views on the financial burden of requiring variances for relatively small sheds, with one member noting, “if you want to put a 120 square foot shed, you’re going to have to come in and get a variance,” indicating the potential $3,000 cost for homeowners.

Another topic was the resolution for the Millington Volunteer Fire Company’s generator variance. Mr. Sand brought up crucial concerns about the language and clarity of the resolution. The generator in question had been in place without approval for approximately 20 years, and the application for a variance was seen as misleading. Mr. Sand emphasized the importance of accurate records, noting that the generator’s existence prior to the application needed to be clearly documented. He stated, “I am not an attorney and I’m not sure whether an attorney wrote this or not,” highlighting his uncertainty about the legal framing of the issue.

Further discrepancies in the resolution were discussed, including a publishing error referencing a non-existent attachment in the township’s land use ordinance. Mr. Sand also questioned the requirement for the applicant to pay outstanding taxes and escrow fees, arguing that since the applicant is tax-exempt, this stipulation was inappropriate. The conversation revealed the procedural intricacies of ensuring that variances and their documentation are precise and legally sound. The board ultimately agreed on the necessity of reviewing a clean copy of the resolution for any additional amendments before proceeding to a formal vote.

The meeting also touched on the development of ordinances and the establishment of bylaws and standard operating procedures (SOPs). The board acknowledged the need for clear bylaws to govern its operations, noting that current statutes and ordinances did not entirely cover procedural matters. The absence of existing bylaws for the board was confirmed, and the presenter emphasized the necessity of creating a concise set of bylaws to complement the existing ordinances. These bylaws would address procedural matters such as meeting formats, while SOPs would serve as an internal reference to assist board members in understanding operational practices.

Disagreement arose over the public accessibility of the SOP, with one member stressing the importance of transparency. They argued that making the SOP available to the public would allow residents to understand the board’s decision-making processes better. The presenter explained that the SOP was intended to be a tutorial document, potentially containing internal discussions and historical context on why certain ideas had been rejected. However, the need for public access to this document remained a point of contention, reflecting broader concerns about transparency and community engagement.