Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Cranford Zoning Board grants rear-deck variance after survey dispute resolved

5112688 · June 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a variance to allow a seven-foot rear deck after the applicant confirmed arborvitae would be moved onto the applicant's property and the property-line/fence discrepancy was resolved using a neighbor survey.

The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment on a unanimous roll call approved an application allowing a seven-foot wood deck in the rear yard of a undersized lot after testimony that a neighbor’s survey resolved a fence-location dispute.

Board members said the outstanding conditions had been addressed and the board adopted a motion that included a stipulation requiring the applicant to relocate existing arborvitae onto the applicant’s side of the property and to coordinate any front-yard tree planting with the township Shade Tree Commission.

The applicant’s witness, Robert Ham, testified the parties had received a neighbor’s survey showing the fence sits on the neighbor’s side of the property line and said “they're willing to move those arborvitae to back onto their property” so the neighbor would have “any opportunity to relocate her fence.” He said the applicant would also consider planting a front-yard tree if that would satisfy the Shade Tree Commission. Ham confirmed all setback and lot-size measurements in the variance application were measured from the property line, not from the fence, and that the proposal reduces impervious surface by 7 square feet.

Board members voted by roll call: Burns — yes; Vidwans — yes; Oliver — yes; Sikorsky — yes; Murata — yes. The board recorded the motion as granting the application with the two stipulations noted above.

The variance request cited local zoning provisions listed on the application cover (references provided to chapter/section numbers on the agenda packet). The board’s approval was limited to the relief requested in the application and included the condition that the arborvitae be relocated as testified and that the applicant work with the Shade Tree Commission on front-yard planting when the township undertakes its program.

The board clerk marked the neighbor’s survey as an exhibit at the hearing. No further testimony was taken; the application was closed and approved.