[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6181606,"mediaKeyId","5112679-d5f00e187385924afebcfca3605b467c","parentId",5112679,"title","Cranford ZBA tables Hajjar homeowners' request for rear-yard deck after property-line survey dispute","audioSeconds",398,"startMs",335000,"endMs",733000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5112679-d5f00e187385924afebcfca3605b467c&start=335&end=733","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5112679-d5f00e187385924afebcfca3605b467c/thumbnail_335000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6181606/Cranford/Union-County/New-Jersey/Cranford-ZBA-tables-Hajjar-homeowners-request-for-rear-yard-deck-after-property-line-survey-dispute","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6181606-61a92b26064440ec6c5616278499709e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172447&Signature=g7mWHwcHFzRCSKhVAh5~essg5JPi~ZRvLtztrGkA6xp2CrKd~34EvQSIDdPSuJSaUJXtFz0AmAT9GapvJ7EQXWv9HYAj35wGaJQQ7xM~NU0R5ZZWO285L4~rejvD-gGJZjIJsZbmVeKZnAbriI4yKgI3kv1qIVRQ-9vguZmMHagsyu4ETx-N7sD8RrHhhu8X1TLcVqx72c4pcNZvSUde4cVpcrawMVqZCYYbd6mYsLBMmEfpLW7dd-mMnH5bR9hw98-YMy1Eb02qZ6pBsqk3oEImOvpj7M0yj6zYwJCzR589Sca-2b7CS3iQ0yIzsiaNuKfFee8juu6vm5n4~72LUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Cranford Township, NJ","date","2025-05-19T00:00:00Z","article","Nicholas and Christine Hajjar asked the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 26 for variances to build a 21-by-16-foot wood deck attached to the rear of their home at 225 Cranford Avenue, but the board tabled the application after a neighboring property owner said her survey shows a different rear property line.

The Hajjars, who said they moved into the house nearly two years ago and have a 10‑year‑old daughter, told the board they want a deck so outdoor furniture and family activities are not forced onto wet lawn or steps. Architect Arthur Henn testified the property is undersized for the R‑4 zone (the lot is about 5,000 square feet where 6,000 is required) and that the proposed deck triggers two variances: building coverage and a rear‑yard setback. “The deck is gonna require 2 variances,” Henn said, and described the deck as “a modest size” that would improve access and usability without “a negative impact on the neighborhood.”

The site engineer and Hajjar testified the proposed deck would increase building coverage from an existing roughly 29.9 percent (about 1,496 square feet) to about 35.9 percent (about 1,793 square feet). They said the deck would project to about 17 feet 4 inches from the rear property line, compared with the ordinance’s 22.5‑foot rear‑yard requirement for decks less than 48 inches high; that is, the deck would extend 5 feet 2 inches into the required rear yard.

A nearby neighbor, Kristen Wyman of 110 Garden Street, who lives directly behind the Hajjar property, told the board during public comment that her survey shows the rear property line lies about four feet farther into the Hajjars’ backyard than the applicants’ survey shows. “Because it says that we have 4 feet additional on the right rear corner of property,” Wyman said, and said the disagreement affects the fence location and how the Hajjars measured setbacks.

Board members and the applicants’ architect discussed stormwater and landscaping. Henn said the deck would be built over a ground fabric and crushed stone pervious surface to limit water pooling and that existing downspouts collect to an underground soakage system under the driveway. He said the design reduces net impervious area by about seven square feet because the new landing replaces a larger previous paved area. Henn and the Hajjars said they were open to planting 1 ornamental tree in the front yard if the board conditioned approval on it; Henn said the applicants were willing to work with the Shade Tree Commission and the town on additional street trees.

The board moved to table the application after members raised that a four‑foot discrepancy in the surveys could materially increase the size of the variances the applicants are requesting. A motion “to table the application until the survey is resolved” carried, and the board agreed to adjourn consideration of ZBA25‑003 to the June 23 meeting at 7:30 p.m. without the need for additional newspaper notice; the board noted the applicants would need to reconcile the competing surveys before the next hearing or demonstrate why the discrepancy does not affect the variance analysis.

No formal approval or denial was reached; the record lists the application as tabled pending the survey reconciliation and any supplemental materials the applicant may choose to file. The board advised the Hajjars to provide the surveyor’s findings to the Zoning Board secretary once available so the professionals can review any changes prior to the continued hearing.

The board’s deliberations emphasized three practical questions for the applicants to resolve before the case returns: (1) which survey is accurate, and whether the four‑foot difference alters setback and coverage calculations; (2) whether additional stormwater or landscape mitigation (for example, a rain garden or a front yard tree/planting schedule) should be required as a condition of approval; and (3) whether the deck dimensions or configuration can be adjusted to avoid or reduce variances. The applicants said they will request their surveyor to re‑visit the property and will provide updated documentation to the board secretary.

The application was tabled to June 23 at 7:30 p.m.; the board instructed that the Hajjars and the neighbor should exchange surveyor information and that updated survey documentation be provided to the board in advance of the continued hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Cranford Zoning Board Meeting May 19, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Nicholas and Christine Hajjar asked the Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 26 for variances to build a 21‑by‑16‑foot wood deck at 225 Cranford Avenue, but the board tabled the application after a neighbor produced a competing survey that, if correct, would increase the size of the variances requested.","taxTitle","Cranford, Union County, New Jersey","taxId",57963,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6181601,"Cranford board continues hearing on 600 Lincoln Park East nursing‑home expansion after two‑hour traffic and parking exchange",2721,3285000,6006000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5112679-d5f00e187385924afebcfca3605b467c&start=3285&end=6006","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5112679-d5f00e187385924afebcfca3605b467c/thumbnail_3285000.jpg","/articles/6181601/Cranford/Union-County/New-Jersey/Cranford-board-continues-hearing-on-600-Lincoln-Park-East-nursinghome-expansion-after-twohour-traffic-and-parking-exchange","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6181601-32926c9f74d0ec34f71decde21e86ff4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771172447&Signature=KTO8-gHjmL2SmdFFfwnoMH4WfFZK-qI6fWecb2W9FmLtK6mX8K5JoiQ2jeYnn-JmqghwyB~Dzc0DVSIXaiKoMwV0Eoz1wC7bVjny9IbHA0wdBCj76oSKKfycJlGB6dZxwzCHHGYPSRlCm5it76Tq~oW7H7qy-8YJwXpx7TIo38kniBpMPlCs9mGrIMiIvBBLdN7~mvLmSLBgYaeBB5AZhjBRDCShJjfBObLLrvYeIdMxBHjB0BldsKIV7TYNcBLyppIvV60fimYGy2xw4UXy3ysBNd1qttlTYqiqJWj0TGyvuXKa-~uDWkwX~noxHw94FLzAm78q2F3hc2P5LoJrcg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Cranford Park PropCo LLC’s application to expand the nursing home at 600 Lincoln Park East from 100 to 120 beds drew extended testimony on May 26 about traffic, parking and stormwater; the Zoning Board of Adjustment continued the matter to June 23 to allow the applicant and objectors time to submit additional engineering, environmental and planning materials.

Traffic expert Lee D. Klein, retained by the applicant, testified the independent trip‑generation estimate shows only a handful of additional vehicle trips during peak hours if the facility increases from 100 to 120 licensed beds. Klein told the board he conducted three site visits and observed a peak on‑site parked car count of 27 vehicles; he said the township ordinance requires 60 parking spaces for 120 beds (a typical half‑space per bed rule embedded in the local ordinance). The applicant proposes 55 physical spaces plus a 10% electric‑vehicle charging station credit (five EV spaces) that the applicant’s expert treated as equivalent to 60 spaces under the ordinance; Klein said that configuration complies with local parking requirements on paper and that expected peak parking demand with the proposed staffing is roughly 30 vehicles.

Klein summarized his trip‑generation estimate this way: the change from 100 to 120 beds would add “anywhere from 3 to 7 additional trips” in or out during typical AM or PM peak hours and about eight additional trips on a Saturday—well below the commonly used 100‑trip threshold for significance in traffic‑study practice. The Cranford Police Department memo on the project, dated March 19, 2025, told the board it “has no objection to the revised plans,” and the police memo was entered into the record and read aloud by the applicant’s traffic witness.

However, multiple residents and objectors questioned the traffic witness’s reliance on the applicant’s staffing and vehicle‑use estimates and on a small number of daytime parking counts. Objectors noted the facility’s current occupancy has been below licensed capacity, meaning operational changes that drive occupancy or staffing could alter parking demand. Kevin Asadi, representing concerned neighbors, said the board should consider the practical effect if occupancy rises from an observed current level (about 80 occupied beds, as discussed in testimonies) to 120 occupied beds. Objectors also presented a Ring camera video and photographs showing a box truck mounting the curb at the corner of Lincoln Park East and Cranford Hall Road while attempting a left turn; the board accepted the video into evidence after witness authentication. Neighbors said box trucks and deliveries using Cranford Hall Road repeatedly have caused curb and lawn damage and raised safety concerns for pedestrians.

The hearing also examined impervious coverage and site layout. The application narrative included a number of bulk variances: proposed building coverage of about 26.7 percent vs. a 25 percent maximum; lot impervious coverage proposed at about 64.1 percent vs. 35 percent allowed; three stories proposed where 2.5 is permitted; and a deeply deficient rear‑yard setback (the plan showed a proposed rear yard of 6.72 feet where the ordinance formula requires substantially more). The applicant’s traffic witness acknowledged the southern row of roughly 20 proposed parking spaces contributes materially to the impervious coverage calculation; he and other professionals discussed the option of “land‑banking” those southern spaces (showing them on the plan and designing drainage for their future installation, but leaving them pervious/grass unless needed) to reduce current impervious coverage without sacrificing the ability to add spaces later if operations require.

Board members and the applicant’s team debated whether the site should be designed and approved now with the full impervious footprint or whether the board should condition approval on a plan that treats some spaces as pervious and requires a drainage/stormwater design sized for the ultimate build‑out. The applicant said the drainage system could be designed as if all the parking were built so the basin would handle the full impervious condition; opponents said building that way now would add unnecessary impervious area and increase runoff to the nearby river and park.

Cranford planning and engineering professionals requested more detailed site drawings, a planting/landscaping schedule addressing Shade Tree Commission recommendations, fire‑access turning templates and confirmations that the drive aisles meet fire department standards, and a clearer demonstration of how stormwater will be handled with varying parking configurations. The board’s planner and engineer said they would circulate a consolidated list of outstanding items; the applicant agreed to respond and to have the civil/site engineer back with revised drawings.

After the day’s testimony—including the traffic expert’s roughly two‑hour appearance, public comment, and questioning by board professionals—the ZBA continued application ZBA24‑006 to June 23 at 7:30 p.m. for further testimony from the applicant’s planner, civil engineer and architect, and for new material from objectors’ experts. The board instructed both sides to exchange documents in advance so professionals can review them before the continued hearing.","The Cranford Zoning Board on May 26 continued, not decided, the application from Cranford Park PropCo LLC to expand the nursing facility at 600 Lincoln Park East from 100 to 120 beds after two hours of testimony on traffic, parking and stormwater; the board set the matter for continuation on June 23 at 7:30 p.m.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Cranford ZBA tables Hajjar homeowners' request for rear-yard deck after property-line survey dispute

Cranford board continues hearing on 600 Lincoln Park East nursing‑home expansion after two‑hour traffic and parking exchange