Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges borough to shut alleged sober home at 20 Cripple Bush
Summary
Nick Zafrega told the council a residence at 20 Cripple Bush is operating as a large sober‑home with frequent van traffic and up to '30 to 50' occupants; council members said zoning and licensing questions remain and pledged follow‑up by zoning staff and the planning/land‑use committee.
Nick Zafrega, a resident who said he lives in Old Tappan, used the meeting’s public‑comment period to press the council to act on what he described as an operating drug‑and‑alcohol rehabilitation facility at 20 Cripple Bush.
"There's a drug and alcohol rehab community that is living on 20 Cripple Bush. There's 30 to 50 guys going in and out of that house all day," Zafrega told the council, and said the property is about "0.25 of a mile to all 3 of your schools." He said he followed a transport van to a Valley rehabilitation center and described steady drop‑offs and pickups during the day.
Council members and staff said the matter had been raised previously before the planning board and that enforcement hinges on factual determinations the borough must make. A staff member said the planning board had previously determined the use must be proven to be a "family unit" to qualify under single‑family zoning, and the borough would need evidence to enforce otherwise.
Council members flagged several enforcement pathways they would check: whether the property holds the appropriate DCA licensing, whether required fire inspections and occupancy certificates had been completed, and whether the use exceeded the number of permitted occupants per the zoning and housing codes. One councilor said the zoning officer would be asked to investigate and the land‑use committee would be contacted for guidance.
Zafrega asked the council to "get this closed tomorrow," and councilors committed to follow up: they said they would have zoning staff and the police/planning liaisons investigate, and that the planning board and legal precedent about "family unit" determinations informed possible enforcement options.
The council did not take immediate formal action during the meeting; members directed staff to research licensing and occupancy records and report back at a future meeting.
