Controversial ADU proposal sparks debate over zoning variances

In a recent government meeting, a proposal for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 716 Mount Lucas Road sparked significant discussion among board members. The homeowners are seeking various variances to construct a 1,039 square-foot detached ADU, which would include two bedrooms, a kitchen, and two full baths, along with a carport and additional parking space.

The proposed location of the ADU raises concerns as it does not comply with the required front yard setback of 286.21 feet, instead being positioned just 20 feet from the property line. The board noted that the front yard parking setback requirement is 25 feet, while the proposal indicates a setback of only 13 feet. Additionally, the side parking setback is proposed at 4.75 feet, falling short of the required 5 feet.

The applicant's representatives argued that placing the ADU in a compliant location would necessitate the removal of trees and violate height-to-setback ratios. They emphasized that the ADU is designed to be fully handicapped accessible, which under New Jersey regulations allows for a 5% increase in the total maximum floor area. This increase would permit an additional 453 square feet of floor area, which could be allocated to either the ADU or the main house.

Concerns were raised regarding the impact of the proposed parking space on nearby trees, as the turnaround space appears to encroach into critical root zones. The board requested that the applicant explore alternative locations for the ADU and consider reducing the size of the parking space to avoid requiring a variance.

The meeting included testimony from the homeowners and their engineering and architectural team, who outlined the unique constraints of the property, including steep slopes and buffer areas that limit placement options for the ADU. The discussion highlighted the complexities of zoning regulations and the challenges faced by homeowners seeking to expand their living spaces while adhering to local laws.

As the meeting progressed, board members expressed their concerns and sought clarification on various aspects of the proposal, indicating that further deliberation would be necessary before a decision could be reached. The outcome of this proposal could set a precedent for future ADU applications in the area, as local regulations continue to evolve in response to housing needs.