10:54A major topic of discussion was the placement of an electrical transformer, which was a requirement set by JCP&L. The utility company mandated that the transformer be situated no more than 10 feet from the curb, resulting in its positioning at 5.09 feet from the property line. The unique configuration of the site, with three front yards, complicated the placement further, as it necessitated the transformer being located in what is technically considered a front yard. Despite requests to adjust the location, JCP&L maintained that its placement was essential for equipment access, leaving little room for negotiation.

The board was informed of the significant delays that developers have experienced in securing utility approvals, with testimony highlighting past incidents where responses from JCP&L took one to three years. These delays were described as “crippling,” causing some builders to abandon projects altogether due to the inability to secure necessary electric services. The process was characterized as cumbersome and dictatorial, with the utility company exerting significant control over infrastructure placement, leaving developers with limited options.

Shauna Ebanks, the borough’s director of community development, provided testimony on the matter, and Mr. McKenna, a representative involved in the application, elaborated on the implications of the utility mandates. He explained the necessity of placing the transformer and relocating condensers to Clay Street to enhance the usability of the garden space for residents. The condensers, although not requiring a variance, were strategically placed to maintain aesthetic appeal while adhering to utility requirements.

Lena Bolarda Baron, an engineer for the applicant, confirmed the technical aspects of the project. Mr. Mford, the principal of the applicant, addressed the board, providing insight into the challenges faced with utility placements and the ongoing management of related issues. He emphasized the importance of keeping the project on schedule to prevent financial ramifications.

16:07The meeting witnessed a motion to approve the application, which included standard conditions for compliance with promises made by the applicant and any necessary outside approvals. The board members voted in favor of the proposed resolution, which acknowledged the utility company’s jurisdiction over the transformer placement. The resolution affirmed that there would be no changes to the project’s density, intensity, height, or orientation, nor to previously approved aspects such as ingress and egress, architectural elevations, parking spaces, or site appearance.

16:57The discussion also touched on air conditioning condensers, which were to be placed 10.1 feet outside the front yard area on Clay Street, technically considered a front yard due to the street’s orientation. The board was informed that these adjustments were made to enhance the project’s landscape without introducing health or safety issues.

The resolution emphasized that the developer initially believed that the transformer installation would not require site plan review, but the necessity for such approval was established by the zoning officer. The utility company’s requirements were determined not to be the result of developer negligence, and the design modifications were anticipated to enhance the overall landscape.