A homeowner’s application for a variance to construct an accessory apartment for his 88-year-old stepfather with Alzheimer’s was one of the central points of the meeting. The applicant, Mr. Rigan, represented himself, explaining the necessity for the apartment to exceed the specified square footage. He cited the stepfather’s need for autonomy and specific layout requirements that made reducing the apartment’s size impractical. The Board grappled with the dilemma of adhering to conditional use requirements against the applicant’s personal circumstances. No final decision was made during the meeting.

In addition to the accessory apartment case, the Board wrestled with a proposal to replace a 1,000-gallon septic tank with a 1,500-gallon one. The applicant argued this was necessary to accommodate waste from a bathroom potentially affecting the septic field. The discussion extended to parking space requirements, as the applicant claimed to have six spaces, but there was uncertainty about their eligibility to be counted. Furthermore, the Board and applicant debated the construction in the basement, questioning whether it had been completed with the required permits. The applicant cited urgent family circumstances as the reason for the work.

Public testimony included a resident expressing concerns and seeking clarification on the applicant’s plans for the property. The applicant assured the basement space would only be used by family members and promised a deed restriction to ensure this. In a separate case, strong opposition from a neighbor was voiced against another applicant’s request for a variance, highlighting the neighbor’s behavior and police activity at the applicant’s residence. The applicant’s attorney stressed that the board should focus on the variances, not the personal character of the applicant. An adjournment was granted for the applicant to address issues, including a variance for deck and sewer disposal, and to present plans signed and sealed by an engineer.

Another major topic was the presentation by Esco Precision Inc. The company’s representative, Ryan Eli, outlined their intention to build an industrial Flex space. This project would require two D1 variances and possibly incidental C variances. The Board inquired about the nature of the business and manufacturing processes. Adam Candle, the applicant’s engineer, followed with a presentation on the site plan, which raised concerns about truck circulation and compliance with township ordinances. The Board highlighted the absence of templates for truck movements and the need to ensure feasibility of essential elements such as water, sewage disposal, and traffic safety.

The Board engaged in a detailed exploration of the proposed uses of the building, including light manufacturing and research and development. Discussion focused on the number of employees, hours of operation, and parking requirements based on the anticipated uses. Concerns were raised regarding the capacity for the site and the allocation of resources. The Board also requested further review of a traffic engineering exhibit, emphasizing the importance of adequate traffic circulation.

There was debate about the necessity of having the documents on file 10 days before the hearing, particularly a truck turning demonstration and a review letter from the Fire Marshall. The Board struggled with the suitability of the Su 40 truck for loading operations and the appropriateness of outdoor loading according to the ordinance. The Board stressed the importance of complying with all expert reports and submitting revised plans before the next meeting, and continued the application to the next meeting.

Discussions on architectural and site plans ensued, with the Board requesting clarity on the layout, including office and research areas. The addition of an emergency generator and the need for uniform signage conforming to the ordinance were also on the agenda. The Board emphasized the inclusion of stormwater conveyance profiles and utility requirements.