Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Site Plan Review topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Old Japan Manor team presents revised plans; neighbor counsel challenges outdoor-use notice

Borough of Old Tappan Planning Board · August 19, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Counsel for Old Japan Manor summarized August 1 revised civil and architectural plans (ADA spaces, drainage fixes, vestibule doors and parapet screening). Neighbor counsel argued the application may represent a change in use to outdoor ceremonies and alleged the applicant held outdoor events without permits, raising a potential threshold/notice issue.

Counsel for Old Japan Manor (S5) presented updated submittals filed August 1: revised civil and architectural plans, modified landscaping, a traffic report and adjustments to maintain two ADA parking spaces adjacent to the westerly sidewalk. The applicant’s team said the proposed cocktail-area roof will screen HVAC equipment behind a parapet and that a paved patio in the northwest corner was shifted to maintain existing setback distances; drainage and impervious-coverage updates were also described.

S5 said the team planned testimony from a civil engineer, architect and traffic consultant, and that the board had previously reviewed the project in June. He described steps taken to address concerns raised earlier, including vestibule doors for noise control and revised drainage. "We provided a modified site plan... we now have 2 ADA spaces that abut the existing sidewalk," S5 said.

Neighbor counsel Lehi Cool (S11) entered an appearance on behalf of homeowners at 6 Karen Court and raised a threshold argument: he said the application amounts to a change in use from interior ceremonies to outdoor ceremonies and cited a 1972 board determination limiting outdoor commercial activity. He alleged the applicant had constructed a patio and held outdoor events without permits, which, he argued, could elevate the relief required (to a D1 use variance) and raise notice and substantive issues for the board to address. "The applicant constructed a patio without approvals, without permits, started doing outdoor ceremonies without approvals..." S11 told the board.

Board members and counsel said the materials filed on August 1 would be marked and professionals would be called to testify as time permits. The board did not make a final decision at this meeting and scheduled further testimony from the applicant’s consultants.