Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Old Tappan council finds draft ordinance barring boarding houses consistent with master plan
Summary
In a year-end meeting the Borough of Old Tappan Mayor & Council discussed and voted to find proposed ordinance language that would prohibit boarding houses — including transitional living arrangements, halfway houses and recovery residences (CSLRs) — in residential districts consistent with the master plan. Council members expressed support while urging clearer definitions to avoid vagueness.
The Borough of Old Tappan Mayor & Council voted unanimously to find a draft ordinance “consistent with the master plan” that would bar boarding houses and similar group-living arrangements from residential districts.
Council members said the change is intended to prevent uses the state regulates — including cooperative sober living residences (CSLRs), transitional living arrangements, halfway houses and recovery residences — from being treated as single-family dwellings in local zoning. “Boarding houses, including, but not limited to, transitional living arrangements, halfway houses, recovery residences, and similar uses shall not be considered a one-family dwelling for the purpose of this ordinance and are prohibited in residential districts,” the council discussed as proposed language.
The proposal arose after the borough received correspondence from the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) indicating an application for a CSLR in town that could shift regulatory authority for the use to the state. A council member said the borough had 35 days to act on certain windows of opportunity and pressed for clarity in the local ordinance language so the provision would not be subject to differing interpretations.
During discussion the borough’s zoning officer was reported to have flagged the draft as possibly too vague; members suggested listing examples and keeping the text simple so it is not easy to reinterpret under new terminology. One council member said the ordinance’s plain prohibition had worked in a neighboring town and recommended a similar, straightforward approach.
The motion the council approved asked that the draft ordinance be found consistent with the master plan; a roll-call vote followed with each member answering in the affirmative. The council did not specify an effective date or provide final adopted ordinance text during the meeting; members said further drafting and clarification would follow.
The council also noted that procedural limits and the state role mean local authority over use and building regulation can be constrained once the state has acted. Members urged staff to refine the definitions and return with language that responds to comments from the zoning officer before any final adoption vote.
The council made the motion, heard additional questions about whether the use could appear outside residential zones, and then moved on to other agenda items. The body agreed to revisit detailed language and next steps at a forthcoming meeting.
