Michael Ostman, the representative for the applicant, U 2475 Lamington Road LLC, and Richard Van Orton, a member of the LLC, provided an overview of their intentions to transform the building into two residential tenant spaces. The property has been unsuccessful in attracting commercial tenants, prompting a shift toward residential use. However, the issuance of a certificate of occupancy without a zoning permit has led to questions about the property’s compliance with local zoning regulations. This unresolved issue left the application’s approval in question, with the board emphasizing the need for clear communication and adherence to zoning ordinances.

The board scrutinized the applicant’s due diligence regarding the property’s status and zoning history, as well as the efforts made to secure tenants. Suzanna Carr, the Bedminster zoning official, clarified the requirements for site plan approval, stressing that the board’s approval was necessary for specific property uses. The property’s history and the specific uses it had accommodated in the past were hotly debated, with the board members expressing concerns about the communication and compliance with zoning regulations.

Further complicating the discussion was the property’s historical significance. One board member, R. Colin Hickey, argued that the building was not well-suited for commercial use due to its residential design and that a residential use would better preserve the historic character of the area. The applicant’s intention to improve the property’s aesthetics and reduce impervious coverage was also seen as a potential positive.

The debate also touched on the proposed new sidewalks along Lamington Road, with disagreements about their placement and impact on pedestrian access and traffic. There was also a discussion about the state Planning Commission’s plan and the proposed A4 bill, which could affect municipalities’ control over their towns. Board members voiced concerns about the bill’s potential to undermine local sound planning.

As the meeting progressed, the board addressed the variance plan, with the applicant’s engineer presenting a revised proposal that included an outdoor patio area and changes to reduce lot coverage. The members reviewed the revised plan, questioning the engineer on the proposed changes’ impact on the property and the need for a revised lighting plan and landscaping.

The board also delved into the township’s code, discussing storage requirements for apartments and whether the property’s proposed shed for outdoor storage necessitated a variance or an engineering waiver. The conversation then shifted to parking arrangements and the setback requirements in the VN Zone, with a focus on the need to adhere to residential and commercial coverage standards.

The meeting concluded with an agreement to not vote on the application at that time, opting to carry the hearing until April 4th, 2024. The board members also took a moment to express their condolences for the passing of a resident, Teresa Petus, who had been active in the community.