Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Southampton Land Development Board rejects Mulholland variance to park 15,000–20,000 lb commercial truck in driveway
Summary
On Feb. 6, 2025, the Southampton Township Land Development Board denied an application by Ms. Mulholland to park a 15,000–20,000 lb commercial vehicle in her driveway after neighbors presented photos and raised safety and neighborhood-character concerns.
On Feb. 6, 2025, the Southampton Township Land Development Board declined an application by Ms. Mulholland (app. 24-1903-26) to park a 15,000–20,000 pound commercial vehicle at 211 Ridge Road, citing neighborhood objections and the need for variances from several zoning standards.
Ms. Mulholland and Mr. Mendez appeared, were sworn by Board Solicitor Mr. Lange and testified that they sought relief from the municipal limit on commercial vehicle storage weight, from restrictions on storing commercial vehicles in a front yard, and from buffering requirements. Board Planner Mr. VanBernum reviewed ERI comments and the applicants offered testimony in response to that review.
Several nearby residents spoke in opposition during the public comment period. Hans and Heidi Hirshblond-Underwood of 213 Ridge Road presented two photographs entered as exhibits O-1 and O-2 and raised concerns about the impact of parking a heavier commercial vehicle in the front yard. Jeffrey Nodine of 206 Ridge Road and Michele Sarnes of 209 Ridge Road also spoke; Sarnes presented two photographs entered as exhibits O-3 and O-4. Neighbors emphasized safety, neighborhood character and buffering as key objections.
A motion to approve the application was moved by Mr. Dehoff and seconded by Ms. Conover. The minutes record a list of recorded nays that includes Ms. Conover, Mr. Heston, Mr. Kavanagh, Mr. Keebler, Chairman Magazzo, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Raftery, Mr. Mattio and Mr. Dehoff; no ayes are recorded in the minutes text. Based on the recorded votes in the minutes, the application did not pass.
The minutes do not include direct quotations or a detailed readout of the ERI review or board discussion beyond the public testimony and the vote. The board did not record additional conditions, directions to staff, or an alternative motion in the text provided. The meeting then moved on to other business and adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
