At the heart of the discussions was the case of Anthony and Teresa Mise, who sought use variance relief for their property, which they had purchased under the impression that it was a legally recognized two-family home. Their attorney, Anthony Spango, argued that the Mises were misled by property listings, tax records, and letters from zoning officers. Anthony Mise, as a witness, noted that the property had been intermittently used as a two-family home since 1987. He mentioned that there had been no issues with parking or backing out onto the road. The board grappled with whether the previous owner bore responsibility for the incorrect representation and whether the Mises could seek recourse.

Board members expressed concerns about the separation of the first and second floors of the house, which required external access, and debated the responsibility of realtors and the township in verifying the property’s status. A letter from 1987 was cited, stating the property was not zoned for a two-family house, as was another from 2015 that addressed an illegal conversion. Despite these revelations, the zoning officer testified that the applicants had been misguided during the purchase process and had not been the subject of enforcement action regarding the property’s use.

Brian Smith, a licensed land surveyor and professional engineer, provided expert testimony on the property’s characteristics, noting its non-conforming setbacks and coverage. He addressed safety concerns about vehicles backing out onto Route 202, stating that while it was not illegal, it was the driver’s responsibility to ensure safety. The board deliberated on the possible reconfiguration of parking to improve maneuverability and considered the impact on the historical preservation outlined in the master plan.

Residents Kelly Rakovic and Greg Kenya voiced their concerns about the potential impact of the property’s use on their homes, with Rakovic worried about property value, safety, and flood risks, while Kenya was cut off for not phrasing his concerns as questions. Professional planner Alison Copco testified in support of the Mises’ application, emphasizing that the two-family dwelling aligned with the township’s zoning purposes and that the current use was consistent with the neighborhood’s character. She argued that there was no substantial detriment to the public good or the township’s zoning plan and ordinance.

During cross-examination, a board member questioned the sufficiency of the special reasons provided for the variance and the proof linking the statutory references to the application. Despite the debate, the board ultimately approved the use variance with conditions, including landscaping and parking considerations. This approval came after recognizing the property’s long-standing function as a two-family home and concluding that it would not have a detrimental impact on the town.

In addition to the variance discussions, the meeting included insights on legislative matters and their potential effects on municipalities, with members appreciating the legal guidance provided. The meeting concluded with the board engaging in informal conversations before adjourning.