A central focus of the meeting was the application by Kurt Fry, who sought a variance to install a hot tub on his property, which would increase the impervious coverage from 20.3% to approximately 20.53%. The variance was necessary due to the township’s maximum coverage limit of 20%. Fry cited therapeutic benefits for his wife, who suffers from fibromyalgia, as a compelling reason for the installation. Township Planner Jeffrey Vaccarella had visited the site and raised no concerns about the environmental impact, confirming that no additional stormwater management measures were required due to the minimal increase in coverage.

However, the application sparked an in-depth review of Fry’s property history, revealing previous variances granted for other structures, notably a pool, on what was termed the front yard due to the property’s unique layout. The board discovered that some existing structures, including an extended patio and wood deck, lacked proper permits, raising compliance issues. The board discussed these unpermitted constructions and clarified that any approval for the hot tub would necessitate Fry securing after-the-fact permits for these structures.

Fry expressed concern over the financial implications of acquiring additional permits, given his substantial investment in the hot tub project. The board reassured him that while further variances were unnecessary for the prior constructions, obtaining the requisite zoning and construction permits was mandatory.

The meeting also addressed an application from Dave and Sally McPherson, who sought a certificate of non-conforming use for their multi-family residential property. Their representative highlighted the property’s history, noting its continuous use as a multi-family residence since 1956, following its conversion from a tavern to apartments. The board reviewed property tax records and fire safety certificates, which affirmed the property’s classification and compliance with safety regulations.

A photo from 1955 was introduced to support the family’s long-standing association with the property. Despite the absence of official records predating the township’s first zoning ordinance in 1957, the board acknowledged the historical continuity of the property’s use. Concerns about unpermitted upgrades were raised, but the board agreed that the property’s non-conforming status was valid, given its established history.

The board deliberated on how to manage potential future expansions of use, emphasizing that any changes would require additional applications to ensure compliance with current regulations. The application was approved, with board members stressing the importance of clear procedural communication moving forward.

In an effort to improve meeting efficiency, the board discussed implementing a policy to limit new testimonies after 9:45 PM, addressing concerns about the duration of recent meetings. The proposal aimed to streamline proceedings by better managing time and ensuring applicants are well-prepared, potentially using informational materials to bridge any knowledge gaps about the zoning process.