Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sober Living Residence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Old Tappan council hears neighbor letter about proposed sober‑living residence at 20 Pribblebush
Summary
Council members discussed a neighbor letter about an application to operate a cooperative sober‑living residence at 20 Pribblebush, noted state oversight and local zoning limits on boarding houses, and said they would review existing ordinance language before any local action.
The Borough of Old Tappan Mayor & Council discussed a neighbor’s letter about a proposed cooperative sober‑living residence at 20 Pribblebush during their sine die meeting. A council member said the letter raised concerns about converting a single‑family home into shared housing for people in recovery and noted neighbors in a nearby town had hired counsel in a past case.
The council member who raised the issue said the proposal was for a cooperative sober‑living residence (referred to in discussion as an “ESLR” or “DSLR”) and recounted a similar application in Upper Saddle River that neighbors opposed and ultimately saw withdrawn. “I got a letter regarding 20 Pribblebush,” the staff/secretary said during the discussion; another council member said, “They’re trying to open a, ESLR,” and described the model as converting a five‑ or six‑bedroom house to hold about 10 to 12 recovering residents.
Members discussed how such facilities interact with state oversight and local zoning. One council member said the use is regulated at the state level and may be classified similarly to a boarding house under the Department of Community Affairs (DCA); another member noted the borough previously adopted an ordinance provision prohibiting boarding houses in residential zones. “If they file an application before the ordinance, the old ordinance governs,” a council member said, urging a review of existing local code language.
Council members also raised practical questions about accessibility and funding. The Chair asked whether operators would be required to make the building handicap accessible; in response members said they did not know and that operators typically seek approvals from the DCA. Several members noted that neighbors are likely to mobilize if an application is filed, pointing to prior experience in Upper Saddle River.
The meeting record shows no formal application decision or vote on an ordinance change. Instead, the council discussed next steps: reviewing the borough’s written ordinance provisions, confirming how state DCA approvals apply, and monitoring whether an application is filed. No formal direction to staff to adopt an ordinance amendment was recorded during the meeting.
