The Livingston Zoning Board heard seven cases at its April 22 meeting, approving six, while pushing back a vote on one to a later date in July.
41 Manor Road
14 Waterfall Drive, LLC requested a 5.3 percent habitable floor area ratio variance to build a new single-family home due to the lot being undersized. According to the architect, Jose Carballo, the home will be a two-story home with a basement area, entry foyer, living room, dining room, and four bedrooms on the top floor.
Carballo also pointed out that, iffive feet were taken off the building, the bedrooms would be even smaller, though it would still fit the neighborhood’s aesthetic. Planner Nicholas Graviano also felt that the proposed house kept within the neighborhood pattern and fell below the maximum habitable floor area number, meeting all setbacks while promoting public health, safety, morals, and general welfare.
A motion to approve the variance passed.
18 Browning Drive
Jesse and Dana Good sought approval to add a second car garage addition and two-story addition to 18 Browning Drive. They specificallyrequesteda front yard, left side yard, and corevent ner lot setback for the property. The couple revealed they have lived in the house since 2013 and, with two daughters, want to expand the house with a primary suite and two-car garage to make room for their family.
The architectural hardship is how the nonconforming home is situated on its lot, with the Goods confirming that, if it were square, they would not have this issue. They also told the Board that, due to the house’s alignment, any addition would result in a variation of the same variances they have requested.
The Board ultimately approved their requests.
(Continued on Page A-6) (Continued from Page A-1)
6 Spalding Drive
Zoning Board
6 Spalding Drive, LLC requested a front yard setback and habitable floor area ratio variance for the construction of a single-family home at the aforementioned address. House details, according to engineer Tom Stearns, included a two-car garage, a backside patio, a retaining wall, and new piping on the roof to help catch runoff water.
Architect Ayman Sedra then showed a layout of the home’s features, including a basement, four bedrooms, a laundry room, and a two-story entry foyer measuring 54 square feet. He also confirmed the attic was accessible via pull-down stairs, and the rest of the elevations matched the home’s character.
Additionally, as a planner witness, Graviano believed the applicant’s home promoted a desirable visual environment and did not go beyond its proposed lot limits, so relief could be provided without concern. Ultimately, he assured the Board that the residence offered no risk of impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance.
The motion passed.
64 Hillside Avenue
Yimin Sun and Xuan Ji, represented by lawyer Matthew Posada, challenged the zoning officer’s calculations of the habitable floor area and habitable floor area ratio to label their basement at 64 Hillside Avenue as a first floor. Posada and his witnesses also requested multiple variances to replace the existing house and build a second single-family home, including a front yard setback, side yard fence/retaining wall, and habitable floor area.
Stearns and Graviano again served as witnesses, with Stearns explaining how the goal is to move the existing dwelling and create a new house with features like an open patio area. Graviano also pointed out that a basement, per the municipality’s land use code, is legally defined as an area partially or completely below grade, or with its ceiling more than four feet above the finished grade at any point. In this case, Graviano felt that the property met both criteria. However, because its height and space went over the first floor, the Board had to decide whether this layout fell under Livingston’s town ordinance as a basement or not.
The Board suggested that Sun and Ji’s team consider their concerns and return with a revised presentation. The case was then adjourned to July 22.
15 Sparrow Drive
Bala Ratha Krishnan asked the Board for a 2.5foot front yard setback and a 3.3 percent habitable floor area ratio variance to build a new single-family home. Sedra and Graviano served as witnesses, breaking down the home’s features like a media room, walkout basement, two-story foyer, and four bedrooms. Following critiques from Livingston residents who attended the meeting, Krishnan agreed to amend his plans and move the house back 2.5 feet, thus removing the need for a front yard setback variance.
After Graviano assured the Board that granting the FAR variance will have no substantial impairment to the zoning ordinance, a motion to approve this remaining variance passed.
29 Norman Court
Eddie Kemelman requested an 8.5-foot rear swimming pool setback to install an inground pool on his property.
Using the smallest pool design available, engineering witness Paul Gdanski described this property as narrow due to the layout of the surrounding cul-de-sac. It was designed with as little patio as possible and contains no front yard setback, while also remaining a certain distance from the elevated deck for safety reasons.
After one neighbor criticized how the pool addition might impact his house’s backyard space, Kemelman agreed to amend the variance to 4.25 feet, changing the pool’s location, but not its size or shape.
A motion to approve the setback passed.
4 Spalding Drive
Alexiis JGS, LLC asked the Board for four variances to construct a new single- family home: a five-foot front yard setback, a 0.4 percent aggregate side yard, a 3.25-foot rear yard setback, and a 7.8 percent habitable floor area ratio.
Property owner Jihang Su was represented by architect witness Robert Emert Jr., who discussed the need to convert the one-story house with a more updated look and flip its driveway orientation.
Though Emert revealed how they matched certain setbacks to adjacent homes in the neighborhood, Su later agreed to change his aggregate side yard measurements so one variance would be removed.
After getting conditional approval that the attic would not be used as living space,
