A notable portion of the meeting was dedicated to the issue of a faux door on a property facing Dandelion Way. However, concerns were raised about what was referred to as a “faux door,” which involved merely trim work outlining a door rather than an actual door integrated into the facade. It was highlighted that this faux door was non-functional due to the interior layout of the house. The individual sought clarification, indicating that their understanding was that the intent was to have a physical door that, while not operational, would appear functional from the street.

The discussion also highlighted the absence of landscaping along the foundation of the house. The speaker argued that such landscaping was necessary to soften and buffer the appearance of the property, making it blend better with the neighborhood. Landscape architects had recommended adding this greenery. The necessity for the facade along Dandelion Way to appear as though it aligned with typical residential front doors was emphasized. The resolution regarding these facade changes aimed to enhance the street-facing appearance of the property straightforwardly.

During the discussion, procedural concerns arose about the public nature of the meeting. The chairman reminded that the board would only discuss matters among themselves and not open the floor to public commentary at that moment. The speaker was advised to remain calm and let the board proceed with their business. The chairman also mentioned that any disagreements with the board’s decisions could be pursued through legal action, although this was not preferred.

As board members contributed their perspectives, one member expressed agreement with the need for a more realistic appearance of a front door, noting that the current facade did not convey the intended appearance. Another member echoed this sentiment. Additional remarks reiterated the requirement for the facade to resemble a residential front door more closely. The board deliberated over whether there should be a walkway leading to the faux door, asserting that the design needed a functional look to avoid the door appearing as if it was “floating in air.”

The next steps involved the applicant needing to submit a plan depicting the proposed changes for both the faux door and the landscaping. The board aimed to ensure that their vision aligned with the applicant’s before any funds were expended on the modifications. Consensus was reached that the zoning office would subsequently send notes to the applicant outlining these discussions and necessary actions. The chairman clarified that despite the contentious nature of the matter, the board had conducted a thorough discussion and would proceed with necessary notifications based on the agreed-upon comments.

Another topic involved an application concerning revisions made to a property plan. Several concerns previously raised during prior meetings were revisited, including the location of propane tanks, which had been moved to a position west of the building, meeting all setback requirements, and the capacity of the septic system. The property plan was revised to include a deck added to the rear of the building, making it more residential in appearance.

Architectural plans were also updated, although the architect was not present. Key updates included a bathroom and laundry room added on the lowest level, along with storage space for a washer and dryer. An August 12, 2024, report prepared by a board member identified that most items discussed were carryovers from previous meetings. One highlighted point was the updated parking capacity, now showing provision for five vehicles in the garage area. The applicant clarified that there were six parking stalls available, with additional parking along the driveway leading to the street.

Additional issues brought up included a deed overlap addressed by a quit claim deed and satisfactory storm drainage plans. No generator would be required on site, and HVAC units would be placed at the rear of the roof. A maintenance agreement would ensure access for emergency vehicles from the main road to the facility.

The board then discussed the proposed retaining wall near the propane tanks. The tanks would be installed underground, and the wall detail would need to be provided for proper inspection during construction. The size of the propane tanks was specified as two 1,000-gallon tanks, which did not require additional state approval. After addressing all issues, the board moved toward approving the application, receiving unanimous support.

Following this, the board discussed a variance application for construction work done on a property on Stacy Court. The applicant sought to move an outdoor kitchen and reduce the patio area encroaching on the septic bed to comply with township regulations. A report highlighted the variances requested, including total side yard and rear yard setbacks. The board discussed the property’s conditions, noting a reduction in impervious coverage due to proposed changes and emphasized stormwater runoff mitigation.