Foremost, the board tackled an appeal regarding a property on West High Street, intended for use as a group home. The appeal challenged the zoning officer’s decision, arguing that, under New Jersey law, group homes should be treated as single-family residences. The proponents emphasized that the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) had already approved the site, which met all necessary regulatory requirements, including safety renovations such as new sprinkler systems and fire alarms, estimated at $128,000. The representatives clarified that while they were not seeking to bypass standard building permits, they believed the change of use should not entail the additional scrutiny typically reserved for commercial entities.

The conversation delved into the historical context of zoning laws and the evolution of legislation aimed at reducing discrimination against group homes. The board members discussed the implications of treating these homes equivalently to single-family residences, highlighting that similar properties purchased for regular residential leasing would not face such requirements. Legal frameworks, like the Fair Housing Amendments, were cited.

Community concerns were voiced, particularly regarding the transformation of single-family homes into business operations. Residents expressed apprehensions about the erosion of neighborhood character and historical integrity, fearing that investment-driven purchases might prioritize profit over preservation. A resident noted the historical significance of the property, a structure dating back to 1892, and the potential impact of the group home on the community’s aesthetic. In response, the applicant reassured stakeholders of their commitment to maintaining the building’s historic features, such as stained glass windows and slate sidewalks.

Further complicating the board’s agenda was the ongoing issue with the Gran building application. Repeated delays and the applicant’s failure to provide a complete application prompted stern discussions about possible dismissal. Board members expressed frustration with the prolonged timeline, noting that the application’s status had been in limbo for over two and a half years. A strong stance was suggested to address these delays, with proposals to dismiss the application if the applicants did not show up or failed to offer necessary updates.

The board also highlighted similar issues with the Bell Avenue application, which was entangled in pending litigation. Concerns were raised about the potential for a default approval if the board did not act within the statutory 120-day period once an application is deemed complete. Members discussed the importance of prosecuting applications with due diligence and the need for applicants to formally withdraw their current applications if they wished to pursue new proposals.

The members agreed to consider dismissing the Gran building application at the next meeting if progress remained stalled, emphasizing the need for closure on these matters to address the backlog effectively. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn.