A point of discussion was the church’s request for site plan approval, which included variances for parking spaces and lot depth. The church’s proposed building, with a footprint of 1,496 square feet, required a D3 variance due to the presence of an unimproved paper street that affected the lot depth. Additional variances were needed for parking, with the board agreeing to a reduction from the required 254 spaces to 218 after a survey assessed actual needs. The board’s decision was partly influenced by the county’s approval of a revised driveway plan, which included a full movement driveway with a left-turn lane. This change was expected to alleviate traffic buildup on the main road and improve access to the church.

Community concerns were prevalent throughout the meeting. Residents expressed anxiety over the potential impact of the church’s development on local traffic and flooding. Tony Dunn, a resident of Sharon Drive, highlighted past issues with the county’s handling of road infrastructure, specifically mentioning unfulfilled promises about dredging a nearby pond and disruptions caused by previous county actions. In response, the board clarified its limited jurisdiction over county decisions and encouraged residents to document their concerns with photographic evidence for presentation at county meetings.

Stormwater management was another critical concern, with residents seeking assurances that increased runoff from the church’s construction would not exacerbate existing water problems. The board confirmed that a significant stormwater management plan was in place, designed to mitigate drainage issues at the site’s entrance. This plan included a drainage inlet to collect water, potentially improving conditions in the area.

Parking limitations were also discussed, with the applicant reaffirming their commitment to adhere to previous agreements restricting parking on local roads. The topic of tree removal was broached, with the board reminding residents of the township’s tree replacement ordinance, which mandates permits for tree removal and requires either replacement or financial contributions to the township’s tree program if violations occur.

During the public comment session, Joe Torsa, a resident west of the church lot, voiced concerns about the proposed left turn lane potentially extending beyond the church property and impacting his driveway access.

Signage and maintenance plans were additional points of interest. Michelle Mia inquired about signage plans, with the response confirming compliance with existing ordinances, which may include a monument sign without requiring further board approval. Darlene Sandlin raised questions about the maintenance of permeable asphalt, a component of the drainage plan, emphasizing the need for a robust maintenance strategy to prevent failure.

Despite community apprehensions, board members highlighted the applicant’s cooperative approach, noting their willingness to engage with residents and comply with township standards. The meeting concluded with a unanimous decision to approve the church’s application.

In addition to the church development, the board considered residential variance requests, including a one-story addition on Phoenix Parkway and a new single-family dwelling on Roosevelt Avenue. Both cases required variances for lot width, with the board approving the applications after detailed presentations and public hearings.