A packed Zoom audience cut short the Hopewell Township Zoning Board’s Sept. 3 meeting, as hundreds of residents logged in to follow a controversial application for a sober living residence on Aqua Terrace.
The hearing, which was expected to dominate the agenda, ended before public testimony could begin after the board determined too many people were locked out of the online session.
Deck and Farm Cases Heard First
Before reaching the night’s main case, the board moved quickly through two other applications. A family on Manley Road received approval for a deck variance (Case 25-14), with board members noting the project was consistent with neighborhood character and drew no objections.
The board then heard hours of testimony in Case 25-10, a request from property owners on Pennington-Titusville Road seeking to reinstate a small apartment as a second dwelling on a preserved farm. Their attorney presented tax records, utility bills, and aerial photos to argue the unit had existed since the 1950s and was historically taxed as a separate residence. Neighbors testified they had no objections, but several board members raised questions about whether farmland preservation rules allowed a second use. The case was carried forward because the Aqua Terrace case caused the meeting to end.
Aqua Terrace Case Draws Overflow Crowd
Case 25-15, the final application, concerned a proposal by the property owners to permit residents of a licensed sober living facility to occupy an existing single-family home at 6 Aqua Terrace.
The township’s former zoning officer had denied a permit, stating sober living facilities are not permitted in the R-150 zone. The applicants appealed and simultaneously sought a D(1) use variance. Their legal team argued that residents in recovery would live together as a “single housekeeping unit,” which state courts have found must be treated the same as a family for zoning purposes.
Project Planner Tiffany Morrissey and representative Marc North testified that the residents would share meals, chores, and expenses in a family-like arrangement. They emphasized that no site changes were proposed, but that under state fire code the house would be classified as a “life hazard use” requiring inspection.
Legal and Policy Arguments
The applicants leaned heavily on New Jersey Supreme Court precedent, including the Glassboro v. Vallorosi decision, which recognized unrelated individuals living as a single housekeeping unit as a family. They also cited the federal Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, which require municipalities to make reasonable accommodations for people in recovery, who are considered a protected class.
The board attorney and staff acknowledged that the legal arguments were complex and unsettled. Engineering staff said they had no site concerns, and the fire official reminded the board that state law requires sober living homes to be inspected but also to comply with local zoning.
Several board members admitted to having question from the legal presentation. “It feels more like something the courts should be deciding,” one member said, questioning whether the zoning board was the proper venue. Others pressed the applicants’ attorney to explain plainly why the home should be considered a permitted use.
Meeting Ends Early
As the presentation continued, the number of residents trying to access the hearing ballooned. Some board members noted their screens filled with chat notifications from people who could not participate. Chairman Bill Cane paused the proceedings, saying the meeting could not continue without giving all members of the public a fair chance to ask questions and comment.
“We need to give everyone an opportunity to be heard,” Cane said. “With the volume of people trying to get in tonight, we can’t do that fairly.”
The hearing on Aqua Terrace was carried to Oct. 15 on Zoom and there will be other issues heard by the zoning board on Oct. 8.
What Comes Next
When the application returns, the board must first decide whether to overturn the zoning officer’s denial by finding that the residence qualifies as a permitted single-family use. If not, the board will then consider the request for a use variance, weighing whether the proposed use is consistent with township planning and whether it poses negative impacts.
