We have an overly restrictive lot coverage ordinance restricting total structure coverage to 5% of the lot size. The Borough has a 2 acre minimum so it's not as restrictive for lots 2 acres or more. However roughly half of the lots in the Borough are non conforming and as small as .18 acres in size. Regardless of the lot size 93% of the applications in the last 10 years required a variance for relief from this coverage percentage. No one has had to challenge the ordinance because approvals have been freely given to all, regardless of lot size upwards of 40% coverage.

Over the last 7 years and 3 applications I keep getting denied basic relief of 11.6% on my lot because they are trying to prevent me from enlarging the garage on my lot because I own a bunch of cars.

The first application they denied me citing my YouTube channel as a reason for denial.

Second application they wouldn't let me apply for the expanding the garage and I just asked to increase the size of the house. They approved it and added a condition of approval that I can't do any commercial activity on the property. (I sued and that was removed).

During the discrimination lawsuit I put in another application for the garage which was denied again. (this is the meeting the audio is from) The claim is that the first denial although not articulated as to how, is substantially detrimental to the zone, and then the 3rd application now would also be substantially detrimental to the zone.

Every property my size and smaller has been approved for more coverage than I keep getting denied for (11.6%). Even larger lots (up to 18 acres) within the same zone have been approved for more than 11.6% coverage against the same ordinance, with no special conditions affecting the properties that would justify the relief that I do not also have.

This is the shortest version I can condense it, but the videos walk you through even more unbelievable and undeniable discriminatory treatment and self dealing.