The board engaged in a detailed review of the dealership’s site plan, questioning Kevin and Robert Costa, a professional engineer and planner, on aspects such as parking, landscaping, and hours of operation. The dealership’s layout was scrutinized, including the relationship between the two properties, which though under separate ownership, would function as a unified operation. Specific concerns addressed the possibility of the properties being sold independently in the future and the stipulations of the conditional use variance.

Signage variance became a contentious topic as the board deliberated over the necessity and dimensions of the proposed signs. Kevin outlined that the signage specifications were in accordance with the national company’s standards and that identical signs were intended for both properties. Despite some confusion over the signage details, the professionals provided testimony to clarify the requirements and limitations set by the manufacturer.

In addition to the signage, the board’s professionals recommended conditions for the resolution, such as integrating the two properties and addressing any missing information in their reports. Considerable attention was given to the architectural design, building materials, and colors for the entirety of the building, with the board ensuring that all conditions discussed would be reflected in the resolution. The board ultimately voted in favor of granting the site plan application and the requested variances, but with several stipulations including that the use variance would be contingent upon the property’s operation in conjunction with the adjacent dealership, along with the submission of a final plan for township approval.

Another issue addressed during the meeting was the status of board member Rajeh A. Saadeh’s absences from previous meetings. The board conducted a hearing to determine whether Saadeh’s absences, which he attributed to family events and other obligations, were excusable under the state statute and local ordinance. The discussion was charged, with the board members debating the nature of the absences and their communication to the board. Saadeh described the inquiry into his absences as a “witch hunt,” suggesting that the hearing was pretextual. Despite the debate and suggestions to take a break for further consideration, the board did not motion to excuse any of the absences, thereby deeming them unexcused by statutory and ordinance requirements.

The meeting also covered applications for variances from homeowners for several construction projects. One homeowner sought a variance for a shed and patio built without a permit, arguing that relocating the shed to meet the required setback from the property line would be aesthetically displeasing. Although questions arose about the shed’s design and its impact on neighboring properties, public support swayed the board’s decision, leading to the approval of the homeowner’s application, contingent on the resolution of a water issue by the township engineer.

The board addressed another homeowner’s request for a variance to add a fourth bedroom over an existing dining room to accommodate their growing family. The homeowner specified that the property would not expand other than vertically and presented an architect to respond to any technical inquiries. There was minimal opposition from the board to this application.

Furthermore, the board reviewed a home renovation project, with the contractor ensuring that the modifications would harmonize with the home’s original design. Public comments were invited, but no objections were raised, prompting the board to approve the requested relief for the renovation project.