The Livingston Planning Board, at its Tuesday, October 3 meeting, voted to approve Steven Barckley’s request to subdivide 33 Sycamore Avenue into two parcels measuring into 9,158 and 9,000 square feet. Despite closing evidentiary records from the original July 18 hearing, the Board decided on August 3 to reopen a public hearing so Barckley could cross-examine new residential testimonies and statements with his lawyer present.During the July hearing, Barckley’s witnesses explained that he wanted to reestablish the 18,158 square foot lot’s property dimensions to where it was before the lots were joined together in 1953. These lots would be roughly the size of other neighborhood parcels, but the Board expressed concern over the ap- plicant's de.nition of neighborhood atmosphere, while neighbors questioned its lack of building footprint.The Board then held ou its vote to personally examine the neighborhood before deciding whether these measurements warranted concern.At Tuesday’s meeting, Barckley was represented by attorney Liz Durkin – standing in for Brian Romanowski – with engineer witness Rich Keller in attendance. A request to reopen the hearing was made by Livingston resident Deborah Pearlson, which the Board granted. Pearlson, who lives behind the property at 5 Bear Brook Court, objected to the subdivision due to its proposed lots being “grossly undersized” and a lack of reason to justify the requested variance relief beyond financial gain. She also claimed that granting Barckley’s proposed variances would undermine several purposes of Municipal Land Use Law, such as procuring safety from floods and providing adequate light, air, and open space. In particular, Pearlson expressed concern about the property’s sloped topography, worrying that it will cause runoff flooding issues for her home.Resident Yanzhong Niu of 6 Arlington Drive also argued against the subdivision’s construction. A Livingston resident since 2011, Niu and his wife helped his fatherin- law move into the house next to 33 Sycamore Avenue and accused Barckley’s application of being “part of a bait and switch tactic to salvage” a 2018 law sale. He believed that a 1,900 square foot house would not be economically viable, claiming that to break even, the buyer would need to build at least 2,800 square feet. Were the Board to approve this application, Niu worried the buyer would refile the variance application to build a much larger house atop the smaller lots, and the subdivisions would not serve any public good.After Durkin pushed back against Niu’s claims, the Board pointed ...
