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

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.