The crux of the discussion centered on the property’s need for a use variance or a conditional use variance, given that the R1 zone does not allow duplexes without special permissions. The applicant’s representative highlighted the property’s lengthy history as a duplex, stressing that it had functioned without issue for decades. The representative emphasized that despite the lack of formal documentation, the property’s ongoing usage as a duplex should be considered a factor in the council’s decision. The representative noted the challenges in proving the duplex’s legitimacy due to missing historical records, stating, “The fact that the township doesn’t have any records showing that this is a legal duplex doesn’t mean it is a legal duplex but it also doesn’t mean it’s an illegal duplex.”

A significant aspect of the council meeting involved a discussion on compliance with current regulations. The property in question was found lacking in several areas, including parking and overall lot size. The lot was approximately 11,393 square feet, falling short of the 18,000 square feet required for duplexes in the township. The council debated the necessity of adding a fourth parking space, as the current three spaces might not align with local ordinances. The applicant agreed to modify the parking layout to meet the township’s requirements.

Another focal point was the property’s fire safety compliance, particularly the number of exits available to tenants. Concerns were raised about the second floor’s access, primarily through a back porch, and whether this met safety standards. The applicant’s representative assured the council that the building would comply with fire code requirements, irrespective of its classification as a single-family or duplex residence. The need for inspections and confirmations from fire officials was acknowledged as a componet of ensuring tenant safety.

The council also scrutinized the property’s physical alterations and their implications for zoning compliance. The presence of a concrete landing encroaching on the side yard setback added complexity to the application, with questions about whether a variance had been required for its construction.

A member articulated the board’s stance, stating, “we want to see it on a piece of paper,” underscoring the requirement for confirmed compliance from engineers before granting any approvals.

In addition to the primary zoning discussion, the council addressed other matters, including a variance application for a bedroom addition to a residence affected by fire damage. The board approved the necessary variances without public opposition, allowing the property on North Cedar Avenue to proceed with rebuilding.