42:59In a decision, the council approved a variance allowing the construction of an eight-foot vinyl fence on Highway 34. The property owner, Alcitis Vera, sought this variance to replace a previously installed six-foot fence that violated the zoning ordinance by exceeding the maximum allowed height in the front yard. The property’s unique configuration, with a front yard facing Route 34—a busy road—necessitated the fence for safety.

The zoning officer detailed the property’s layout, highlighting its inclusion in a five-lot subdivision with a shared private driveway and clarifying the front yard’s definition. The council discussed the potential visibility of the proposed fence, noting that a six-foot structure would be obscured by an existing wooden fence, while an eight-foot one might be partially visible. Despite this, the council unanimously approved the variance for the eight-foot fence after confirming there were no objections from neighbors. The applicant expressed relief at the resolution, sharing personal anecdotes about his dog’s previous escapes.

09:58Another topic involved the approval of a variance for a pool house at one Victorian Drive. The applicant, Alan Blanchard, sought to legitimize a structure built one foot from the sideyard, less than the required ten feet. During the meeting, the board reviewed Mr. Blanchard’s previous testimony concerning drainage and flooding issues related to his property. An inspection confirmed that these issues did not result from improper fill or drainage redirection. Mr. Blanchard agreed to relocate an existing shed to comply with zoning regulations as a condition of the variance approval. Additionally, the board mandated modifications to the pool house’s roof leader to prevent water from impacting neighboring properties, a suggestion the applicant accepted.

23:43The council also reviewed a variance request from Michael Scarpa, who constructed a deck and pool without permits on Park Avenue. The deck, built during the COVID-19 pandemic, required a C variance due to its proximity to the property line and height. The board deliberated on the issue, emphasizing the need for compliance with building codes and the importance of securing permits to avoid future complications. The decision was deferred to the next meeting, where further discussions would take place.

44:21Lastly, the meeting addressed concerns about a proposed deck and outdoor fireplace on Lidge Drive, located near a steep slope. The board expressed apprehension about granting a design waiver due to potential safety risks associated with the slope. The applicant’s architect assured the board that the site was not at risk but acknowledged his lack of expertise in steep slope engineering. The board advised the applicant to obtain certification from the township engineer confirming the design’s safety before proceeding. This would ensure informed decision-making and adherence to safety standards.