Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Application topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors’ attorney challenges Old Tappan Manor revisions, citing historic limits on outdoor events
Summary
Counsel for nearby homeowners entered appearance and argued that revised plans for Old Tappan Manor represent an unauthorized change in use, pointing to a 1972 board finding and alleged unpermitted outdoor activity; applicant counsel presented revised plans addressing ADA access, noise mitigation and drainage.
Counsel for neighbors told the Old Tappan Planning Board on Aug. 14 that the revised Old Tappan Manor application raises a threshold zoning question that the board must address before proceeding.
Lehi Cool (speaker 11), an attorney representing homeowners at 6 Karen Court, entered his appearance and said he anticipates multiple objections. He told the board that historical board determinations dating to 1972 found outdoor events at the property difficult to control and detrimental to the zoning plan. "Any change in use will result... in substantial breaching and impairing the minimum zoning standards," Cool said, summarizing his clients’ position that continuing or expanding outdoor ceremonies constitutes a change in use requiring a higher level of variance review.
Applicant counsel for Old Tappan Manor (speaker 5) summarized revisions filed Aug. 1: revised civil and architectural plans, a modified circular driveway that retains two ADA parking spaces adjacent to the sidewalk, vestibule double doors introduced to reduce noise transfer from the dining hall, landscaping shifts that preserved setbacks for a northwest patio area, and drainage updates tied to additional impervious coverage. Counsel said the revisions included HVAC screening and maintained a previously approved clearance height for the cocktail area.
Cool alleged the applicant constructed a patio and hosted outdoor ceremonies without permits after the COVID pandemic, contending that the activity and the scope of the current revisions change the property's commercial use and go beyond the D2 variance relief that was discussed earlier in the process. He argued those facts may support a claim that the proposal should be treated as a D1 change in use rather than the relief the applicant has requested.
Board counsel and applicant witnesses acknowledged prior testimony that outdoor events had occurred historically on the premises; counsel and the applicant said some remedial measures (vestibules, landscaping and drainage revisions) have been added in the revised submission. The board flagged questions about notice, the historic record, and whether the correct variance standard has been invoked; members said they would take evidentiary and procedural matters under advisement before deciding on next steps.
The hearing continued with the board marking revised documents and indicating the likely need for additional submissions from both parties and possible further public comment sessions.
