Applicant seeks to allow outdoor ceremonies at Old Tappan catering facility; hearing continued to Sept. 11

At a Borough of Old Tappan hearing, the applicant asked the board to modify a 1985 condition that currently prohibits outdoor ceremonies so the property’s lawn and a proposed patio could host events.

Presenter said the requested change would "permit outdoor ceremonies in the lawn area and proposed patio ... more than an hour in duration, occurring no more than twice daily and including no later than 7PM." Opposing counsel objected that the application’s D1 variance section was left blank, saying "the application was completely left blank on the d 1."

The disagreement centered on whether the ceremonies would be an accessory use of an existing catering facility or a D1 change of use that requires variance relief. Presenter argued ceremonies are an accessory component and therefore not a separate D1 use, while Questioner pressed for documentation of past enforcement actions and court findings.

Opponents’ counsel and a board member said neighbors filed municipal-court complaints, and counsel said those cases produced a judgment about 2020; the board asked that any complaints and court documentation be provided to the clerk at least two weeks before the next session so members can review the materials.

Because of the notice and application concerns, board members discussed options — recess, amend and republish the notice, or continue the hearing. Chair urged caution, noting that proceeding with a defective notice could prompt a later judicial reversal and waste parties’ time and expense.

The applicant’s representative agreed to amend and republish the notice to include language seeking D1 relief “if the board feels that the inclusion of outdoor ceremonies triggers any D1 variance relief,” and to update the application with highlighted revisions and transcript excerpts to reduce the need to restart testimony.

The board set a continuance: the application was carried to the Sept. 11 meeting and staff were directed to accept the updated notice and application. Members also discussed meeting sequencing to allot longer time for far-variance hearings and fit shorter residential applications earlier in the evening.

A board member reminded colleagues of statutory time frames cited in the hearing (noted in the record as about 100–120 days) and explained that applicants commonly grant extensions or request special meetings when deadlines near. The applicant and opponents agreed to provide the requested documents and highlighted application changes ahead of the Sept. 11 date.

The meeting later opened briefly for non-agenda public comment, took a voice motion, and then adjourned by unanimous voice vote. The next scheduled session for this application is Sept. 11; the applicant will renotice and submit requested materials in advance.