Sayreville planning board approves two‑lot subdivision and bulk variances for Cleveland Avenue corner

The Borough of Sayreville Planning Board on Aug. 20, 2025 approved a minor subdivision for property identified as Block 360, Lots 191–194 (00 and 60 Cleveland Avenue), allowing the property owned by Chicle LLC to be divided into two 5,000‑square‑foot lots and authorizing bulk variances needed to permit a new single‑family dwelling on the corner lot.

The decision matters because the existing 10,000‑square‑foot parcel had not been formally subdivided despite prior conveyances; the approval resolves the legal status identified by the borough zoning officer and allows construction of a permitted single‑family use in the R‑5 residential zone subject to conditions.

Applicant attorney David Himmelmann told the board the lots were effectively merged under state law when earlier conveyances occurred and that the subdivision is needed to correct the record so a developer can build a permitted single‑family home. Architect Steven Considine testified the proposed new dwelling is a 2½‑story, four‑bedroom house with a first‑floor footprint of about 1,210 square feet, a conforming height of roughly 28.67 feet and a built‑in garage. Considine said the building complies with setback dimensions but exceeds the maximum building coverage allowed on the resulting 5,000‑square‑foot corner lot and therefore needs variance relief.

Planner Colleen McGurk summarized the planning justification, saying the property is an oversized lot for the R‑5 district and that subdividing it into two 5,000‑square‑foot lots would create lots consistent with the historic lot pattern on the block. McGurk said the board’s 2013 master plan calls for preserving existing single‑family neighborhoods and that, in her view, “this application can be granted without substantial detriment” because the proposed lots and house scale fit the neighborhood, impervious coverage would remain below the borough maximum and most setbacks are met.

Board engineers and the applicant’s architect discussed a recurring drainage issue where water ponds at the corner during heavy rain. The board engineer recommended a sumped inlet in the street to allow faster dissipation of standing water; the architect and applicant raised concerns about placing an unconnected inlet in public right‑of‑way that would require municipal maintenance. The board recorded a direction that the applicant work with the board engineer to finalize a practicable drainage solution and obtain any necessary road‑opening permits.

The board also required that the applicant address other engineering and site requirements listed in the board engineer’s memorandum (August 11), including sidewalk and handicap‑ramp upgrades, curbing repairs and provision of a site‑triangle easement consistent with borough standards. The application record notes required outside approvals such as soil erosion and sediment control permits, construction official sign‑offs, water and sewer department approvals and any required road‑opening permits.

A public comment period produced no substantive opposition to the subdivision; one resident asked clarifying questions about whether the public comment concerned the houses or separate redevelopment matters, and the board clarified the item in front of it was the Cleveland Avenue subdivision.

A motion to approve the subdivision and incorporate the requested bulk variances passed on a roll call vote (see actions). The board’s approval includes conditions that the applicant: satisfy the board engineer’s and planner’s memoranda, provide the site‑triangle easement, upgrade curbing and sidewalks as required, obtain required permits (soil removal/erosion control, road opening), and work with the borough on any drainage inlet design. Construction will proceed only after municipal permits and approvals are secured.

Meeting participants were David Himmelmann (attorney for the applicant), Steven Considine (architect), Colleen McGurk (planner), the board’s engineer (Morgan), Zoning Officer Mashansky and members of the Sayreville Planning Board. The application materials and professional memoranda remain part of the project file for follow‑up review by board staff.