Clark Board of Adjustment approves pool variance for 2 Grouse Lane with landscaping condition

The Clark Board of Adjustment voted unanimously to grant a variance allowing a swimming pool at 2 Grouse Lane during its meeting, approving the application with a condition that landscaping be installed between the pool fence and the sidewalk. The board’s action followed testimony from the homeowner, her engineer and counsel about site constraints created by the lot’s corner location and contradictory local ordinance language. The motion carried on a roll-call vote and was moved by Mark Hayden and seconded by Thomas Mead.

The matter drew sustained testimony because the property is a corner lot that, under one reading of the township ordinance, has two front yards and therefore would be subject to a 40-foot front-yard setback that would prohibit a pool. James First, attorney for the applicants, told the board the applicants sought relief “under both C1 and C2” to remove any ambiguity and to permit construction under whichever setback the board determined applicable. The zoning officer had previously told the applicants the ordinance contained contradictory provisions that could be read to either allow pools in a side yard that faces a side street or to prohibit pools in any front yard.

Why it mattered: the board weighed neighborhood context, the site plan and construction details against the ordinance ambiguity. Homeowner Elizabeth O’Loughlin said she and her family moved to Clark three years ago and want to “make this our forever home.” She testified they have “3 lovely children that are 6, 8, and 1” and that the proposed pool location would maximize sun exposure and create a separate, safer play area away from the patio. The application packet presented overhead and ground photos showing the lot configuration, the adjacent Partridge Run (a short dead‑end street that serves three homes), and a tree line backing onto the Garden State Parkway.

Pool and site specifics offered in evidence: the applicant’s installer described plans for an 18-by-35-foot gunite pool with an 8-foot-diameter jacuzzi and a six-foot extension shelf at the shallow end, for a total effective length of about 41 feet. The pool company representative, Jerome Goldey of Anthony Sullivan Pools, described retaining-wall work, drainage connections and the use of a 54-inch decorative metal fence with locking gates; he said those gates and other safety features required for pools would be installed. The sealed site plan submitted to the board was dated with a final revision of 04/04/2025 and was prepared by Mark Mantala, the engineer noted in testimony.

Neighborhood context shown in the exhibits included an aerial marking of the subdivision’s 31 houses and a count of 14 existing pools in the neighborhood. The board heard that two other corner lots in the area already have pools sited close to side streets (addresses shown in the packet included 10 Rolling Hill Way and 605 Madison Hill Road), evidence the applicants used to argue the requested location is consistent with patterns in the community.

The board discussion included questions about alternatives. Members asked whether the pool could be pushed back to meet a 40-foot front-yard setback; the homeowner said she was not sure that location would have the same sunlight, flat grade or safety benefits. The applicants requested relief from both the 40-foot front-yard rule (if the board deemed the pool to be in a front yard) and the 10-foot side-yard setback (if the board deemed it a side-yard accessory use) in order to avoid later dispute over which provision applied.

Formal action and conditions: Mark Hayden moved to approve the application with the conditions described by the applicants, including installation of landscaping between the fence and the sidewalk for privacy; Thomas Mead seconded. The board conducted a roll-call vote; the members present voted in favor and the chair declared the motion approved. The board explicitly noted that engineering details for drainage and the retaining wall could be conditioned on engineer review and approval as part of the building-permit process.

What happens next: the approval allows the applicants to proceed to obtain building permits and to complete engineered details subject to any permit conditions. The board also said it will raise the ordinance ambiguity in its annual report to the township council for clarification of the code’s front-yard/side-yard language. The applicants and their engineer will work with municipal staff on the technical permit-level approvals before construction begins.