35:56The proposed ADU on Union Street was a focal point of the meeting. The applicants, Aaron Kisel and Margaret Mensel, emphasized their need for a larger, two-bedroom unit to support aging parents with health challenges, arguing that the 800-square-foot limit stipulated by the ADU ordinance was insufficient. They sought to create a space that would allow their parents to live independently while still being close to family support. The application included requests for variances related to the size of the ADU and the existing garage’s sideyard setback and height.

29:19The board heard emotional testimonies from the applicants, highlighting the urgency of their request. Margaret Mensel expressed her concerns about having to relocate her parents to an assisted living facility if the ADU was not approved. Yorg Menzel, Margaret’s father, provided a personal account of their health needs and the importance of staying close to family support. They argued that the proposed ADU, at 1,243 square feet, would occupy only 20% of the main residence’s size, which is below the 40% maximum allowed by the ordinance.

01:01:21The applicants stressed that their proposal aligned with the ordinance’s goals of providing housing options for older residents and individuals with disabilities. However, concerns arose regarding the potential precedent set by approving a variance for the first ADU application under the new ordinance.

01:12:55The board members expressed varied opinions. Some supported the application, citing the personal circumstances and alignment with the ordinance’s original intent. They argued for flexibility in interpreting the ordinance to accommodate unique situations like this one. Others expressed reservations about setting a precedent, emphasizing the need to adhere to the ordinance’s guidelines to maintain consistency in decision-making. The discussion also touched on the possibility of future amendments to the ordinance as the board gains more experience with ADU applications.

Board members grappled with the balance between individual needs and broader community standards. Concerns were raised about the ordinance’s adequacy in addressing larger units required for accessibility, and some members suggested that the township council might need to consider legislative changes to accommodate such needs.

01:54:50In addition to the ADU discussion, the board reviewed another variance application for a property on Chestnut Street. Joanna Seltzer sought approval for a rear yard setback variance to accommodate a one-story addition to her historic home. The board engaged in discussions about preserving the historical integrity of the property while addressing the family’s need for additional space. The Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendations were considered, and the board unanimously supported the application, recognizing the unique challenges posed by the property’s layout and historical significance.

02:44:19The board also deliberated over a proposed garage construction at another property, weighing concerns about height and sideyard setback variances. The applicant sought to build a garage with a loft for storage, but board members debated the necessity of the proposed height, which exceeded the ordinance’s limit. While some members supported the application, contingent on adjustments to the setback, others were reluctant to grant the height variance.