Barbara Educhi appeared before the board to request a variance for her fence, which had been part of her property for over 30 years. The board informed her that her property exceeded the zoning code’s building coverage limit and that adjustments were necessary to bring it into compliance. The board’s primary concern centered on the fence’s proximity to the property line and the overall coverage exceeding the allowable 20%. Educhi was asked to consider moving the fence 12 feet inward or opting for a design that met the zoning requirements. Educhi firmly resisted these suggestions, citing financial constraints and a lack of understanding of why such changes were necessary.

The board members explained the non-negotiable nature of the building coverage rules and the required distance from property lines. They emphasized that compliance was mandatory, irrespective of how long the structures had been in place. Educhi’s daughter, Melissa Mana, sought clarity on the required changes, expressing concern over the requirements given the fence’s long-standing presence. The board explained that failure to comply could result in violations from the code enforcement department, although they noted that the excess coverage was marginal and could potentially be accommodated.

A compromise was reached, allowing Educhi to maintain her existing fence structure if it was modified to meet zoning standards. The board clarified that a 4-foot fence could be permissible if it was at least 50% open, such as a picket or chain-link fence, while a 6-foot solid fence could be allowed if moved 12 feet from the property line. This compromise was proposed to alleviate concerns while adhering to zoning requirements.

The financial hardship faced by Educhi was acknowledged, and the board proposed extending the compliance deadline to spring 2026. Educhi was informed that the signatures she had collected from neighbors were a legal requirement to notify them of the application, not expressions of support. Ultimately, the board retained the authority to make the final decision, independent of neighborhood sentiment.

With these conditions in place, the board moved to a vote on Educhi’s application. The application was approved unanimously, allowing Educhi to keep her fence, provided she adhered to the specified modifications by the extended deadline. No comments were made during the public portion of this agenda item, and the board proceeded to address other matters.

The meeting then transitioned to the application of Michael Murray, who sought to convert a mixed-use property on Stelton Road into a two-family dwelling. The property, located within the BP2 business professional district, had previously been approved for mixed use in 1982, with stipulations for a chiropractor’s office on the first floor and a residential apartment above. The current proposal aimed to create two separate residential units, one on each floor, and included the removal of existing sheds.

A realtor testified about the property’s appeal for residential use, noting the small size of the first-floor office deterred many interested professionals. An architect outlined proposed renovations, which included converting the first floor into a complete apartment without altering the building’s exterior. The board expressed support for the application, particularly as it aligned with township goals for adaptive reuse of existing properties. The application was approved unanimously after no public comments were received.

Finally, the board considered an application from Acme LLC, represented by attorney Tim Arch, seeking a temporary use permit for tractor trailer storage at a property on New Brunswick Avenue. The proposal involved using a gravel area for parking 20 trailers, with no alterations to existing building operations. Arch emphasized the site’s suitability, supported by historical use and staff reports. After confirming that no hazardous materials would be stored, the board approved the application unanimously.