Elon S. Rome’s application for a side yard variance for a 65 by 14 mesh netting batting cage became the focal point of the meeting. Rome explained that the batting cage had been a fixture on the property for almost 14 years and was regularly used. The board’s discussion centered on whether the batting cage should be categorized as impervious or improved based on its flooring, a distinction that impacts the variance required. The debate further delved into whether the cage, including the “mick” installed without a permit, met the definition of a structure or a framework as outlined in township regulations, a question that had implications for whether the set-up qualified as an accessory structure.

The board faced a complicating factor when it became evident that a notice for an impervious coverage variance, which might have been necessary for the batting cage, had not been requested nor noticed for. This oversight presented a challenge for both the applicant and the board as they navigated the zoning requirements. Additionally, the members of the board discussed the need for an inspection to ensure that the netting of the batting cage remained dark in color to mitigate visibility, a condition that seemed aimed at preserving neighborhood aesthetics and minimizing visual intrusion.

The examination of the batting cage’s compliance also raised questions regarding the accuracy of the property lines and the measured setback distances. The setback requirement, which dictates how far a structure must be distanced from property boundaries, became a sticking point in the discussion. The board considered the visibility of the cage from the street and neighboring properties, evaluating the impact of the variance on the community and surrounding residents.

In other business, the board granted a one-year extension of approval for a property on Alexander Road under application ZB 2206. This item was processed without extensive discussion, as it seemed to represent a routine extension of a previous approval.

The meeting also served as a platform for public engagement, with a member of the public, Amara Roy, expressing an interest in renovating a property. Roy was directed to consult with the zoning officer for guidance on the project.

The administrative aspects of the meeting, including the approval of minutes from the February 1st, 2024 meeting and the appointment of a landscape architect, were handled efficiently, paving the way for the more substantive discussions that followed.