11:36The primary focus of the meeting was the application for a D1 use variance concerning the property at 2011-203 Hickory Tavern Road, which houses two residences—a larger, historic cottage and a smaller ranch house. Attorney Frederick Zelli, representing the applicant, presented a detailed case for the variance, emphasizing historical occupation and the potential for future enhancements to the property. The property originally consisted of two lots merged in 1986 and has functioned with dual residencies since 1985. The variance sought to authorize the continued use of both structures, with plans to add a third bedroom to the cottage.

59:10During the meeting, the absence of documented approvals for separate living units was addressed. Zelli explained that township records dating back to the 1950s did not include formal approvals for dual residences, possibly due to past flooding that damaged archives. He argued that the historical use implied a de facto acceptance by the community, even if not officially documented.

23:03A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to testimonials, including a surprise witness, Fritz Keblock, who supported the historical occupancy claims with personal anecdotes about the property. The witness recounted past family ownership and rental arrangements, asserting that both homes had been peacefully occupied without incident since the mid-1980s. The board examined historical connections, referencing the Riss and Engle families who had previously lived on the property and contributed to its community context.

32:10Matthew Rrist, the current owner since 2019, provided additional context and visual evidence, including photographs of ongoing renovations. He confirmed his residence in the ranch house and plans to enhance the main house, including a second-story addition. Rrist explained the structural integrity, noting historical construction methods and materials discovered during renovations.

57:14Discussions extended to zoning compliance, particularly concerning setbacks and existing non-conformities. The proposed renovations, including the second-floor addition, sought to maintain the property’s historical character while addressing modern needs. The board considered the implications of dual housing on a single lot, exploring potential challenges if the property were ever divided.

01:03:38The board’s deliberation included references to New Jersey Supreme Court interpretations of zoning laws, discussing the suitability of the property’s proposed use and its alignment with community welfare objectives. They highlighted the potential positive impact of the variance, offering affordable housing options without detracting from the public good or zoning intentions.

The meeting’s outcome reflected strong support for the variance, with board members acknowledging the property’s historical significance and potential benefits to the community. The variance approval included conditions to address existing non-conformities and ensure aesthetic consistency with the neighborhood.