16:38The application, presented by a representative for Dicker 3 LLC, proposed the transformation of a long-vacant commercial space into a residential unit. The property, a brick-faced building with two commercial units on the ground floor and two residential units above, had struggled to attract tenants for the uninhabited space for nearly three years. The representative emphasized the economic hardships faced by the property owner due to the prolonged vacancy, citing financial losses from reduced rent efforts and ongoing maintenance costs.

02:15The applicant’s argument centered on public health, safety, and welfare. The representative described the neighborhood as a blend of commercial and residential uses, arguing that the conversion would enhance the community by fostering a sense of belonging. It was stressed that the building’s visual aesthetics would remain unchanged and that the proposal met positive criteria outlined in municipal land use law, including promoting adequate light and air, encouraging appropriate population densities, and improving the visual environment.

12:39However, the board expressed skepticism about the economic rationale presented for the variance. Concerns were raised about the lack of economic criteria in the justification, with board members highlighting the importance of maintaining a commercial presence in the downtown district to support a thriving local economy. Emphasizing that zoning regulations aim to concentrate commercial activity for the neighborhood’s business ecosystem’s health, members questioned whether economic hardship alone was a sufficient basis for granting the variance.

One board member articulated a broader concern about setting a precedent that might encourage additional commercial-to-residential conversions, potentially undermining the area’s business landscape. They remarked, “Where does it end? You can’t grant one without granting the other,” stressing the risk of opening the door to similar requests that could disrupt the commercial core.

The property owner, Daniel Dicker, testified about his attempts to rent the space, noting that it had been listed at $800 a month without success. Dicker argued that converting the space into an apartment could enhance neighborhood aesthetics, claiming, “A closed business compared to something that is more beautified for somebody living there would be better for the neighborhood.” Yet, this perspective was met with resistance from board members concerned about the potential impact on local schools and the adequacy of outdoor space for children.

22:34George Fick, a neighboring property owner and board member, expressed reservations about the proposed residential unit, highlighting the potential for increased tenant density and associated issues like overcrowding and noise. Fick also pointed out potential inadequacies in how the commercial space had been marketed.

09:22As the board deliberated, a consensus emerged that the application did not meet the necessary criteria for approval. Members emphasized that the proposal contradicted the township’s master plan goal of fostering a vibrant commercial environment. One member noted, “It goes against the master plan,” reinforcing the belief that supporting businesses should take precedence over increasing residential units.