The annual report was a focal point of the conversation, with the board attorney emphasizing its importance as a reflective tool for the board’s activities and its influence on zoning law at the municipal level. The report is intended to identify areas in zoning ordinances and land use regulations that may require amendments, effectively closing the loop on the municipality’s zoning laws.

Attention to the educational needs of the board was evident, with details about an upcoming event hosted by the Somerset County Bar Association and the importance of board members completing a certified course for zoning board members. The board’s attorney, planner, and engineer are scheduled to conduct a primer for newer members to aid their comprehension of the zoning application process from the applicant’s perspective. Moreover, the discussion touched on the significance of zoning as a balance between property rights and community welfare.

Further into the meeting, the board attorney provided a detailed explanation of the various types of applications processed by the board, including appeals, interpretations, and variances. Special attention was paid to D variances, which require a supermajority vote, emphasizing the need for applicants to be well-prepared when presenting their requests. An anecdote from the board attorney about a past variance case illustrated the real-life applications of these deliberations.

The necessity for a quorum and the presence of a full complement of board members during hearings was a recurring theme. Concerns were raised about the impact of canceled meetings and the procedures for members to catch up on missed proceedings, stressing the importance of being present or adequately informed to vote on applications. This discussion seamlessly transitioned into the intricacies of bulk and C variances, with explanations of the C1 “undue hardship” variance and the C2 “flexible C” variance, which requires the applicant to prove that benefits of the variance outweigh any detriments.

Deliberations on how to define a neighborhood for the purpose of determining variances led to a discussion. The board agreed that a project should not be substantially out of character with the neighborhood, but the definition of “neighborhood” itself and its boundary implications were points of contention.

The burden of proof for applicants was a topic, particularly regarding D variances. The board outlined the enhanced burden of proof required for a D1 use variance, where applicants must establish special reasons, undue hardship, or site suitability. The board also discussed D2 variances, related to the expansion of pre-existing non-conforming uses, and D3 variances, which require a demonstration of reconciliation for non-listed uses.

The meeting further examined the proof necessary for grandfathered uses, with the board urging applicants to provide substantial evidence, such as documents or photographs, to validate the existence of a use prior to an ordinance. There was also a discussion about the requirements for commercial versus residential properties, with particular focus given to home offices in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the shift toward remote work.

A review of conditional use variances brought up the necessity for applicants to demonstrate how their project accommodates deviation from conditions, with the Coventry Square case serving as a reference point. The board also discussed density variances, especially in the Village Center area, and the standards for granting such variances while considering affordable housing requirements.

Lastly, the meeting addressed procedural matters, such as the conditional nature of approvals, the importance of resolutions in capturing the board’s thought processes, and legal considerations during deliberations. The board attorney cautioned members about the implications of statements made during proceedings and highlighted the importance of consulting with experts, including board attorneys, planners, and engineers, for informed decision-making.