Clifton zoning board approves front-porch setback variance amid neighbors' drainage complaints

The Clifton Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 21 approved a variance allowing a front porch at 15 Priscilla Street to extend about 4 feet into the 30-foot front-yard setback, leaving approximately 26 feet between the porch and the street, the board decided after hearing neighbors' concerns about stormwater runoff.

The decision matters because neighbors said the property’s outdoor improvements — including a pool and paving — have increased water flowing into adjacent yards and are causing periodic flooding; the board approved the porch with a stipulation that leaders/downspouts for the new structure be extended toward the street and that the plumbing/stormwater routing for the new work be reflected in the resolution.

Applicant Moe Salman, who identified himself as the homeowner at 15 Priscilla Street, told the board he was requesting a variance “to allow construction of a front porch” that would extend about 4 feet beyond the setback and cover roughly 13–14 feet in width, or about 50 square feet of additional coverage. Salman said the porch is a nondwelling, open structure intended to let him supervise his 11-year-old son while working from home and to provide outdoor space for his 75‑year‑old father. “I just wanna watch my son play basketball when I'm outside on his porch,” Salman said in his closing remarks.

Two neighboring residents who live on Mayflower Street — Adam Kapitala (spelled during testimony) and Karen Ashey — spoke as interested parties and told the board they have experienced water intrusion they attribute to runoff from Salman’s property. “The reason we're here is because of, water drainage pouring onto our property and flooding us out because of all the structures on his property,” Adam Kapitala told the board during his testimony. Kapitala and Ashey said the problems include rainwater and, they alleged, overflow associated with the pool installed about three years ago.

Salman responded that the house’s gutters and leaders are piped toward the front and that the pool equipment drains to a front‑street outlet; he provided aerial and drone photos and a small packet of renderings and a signed petition he said included neighbors in support. Salman estimated the additional porch coverage at about 50 square feet and said the total lot is about 6,300 square feet (65 by 105), representing a negligible increase in overall coverage. He also told the board he is willing to extend downspouts and otherwise work with neighbors on drainage related to the new porch.

Planning/board staff (identified in the record as Miss Bocato) told the board that Salman remains under the municipality's maximum lot-coverage allowance even with the proposed porch and that pavers in the backyard, not the porch, were a likely contributor to any runoff. Bocato also confirmed that sheds under 200 square feet may have a 3-foot setback and that Salman retained roughly 2% of lot coverage available under the ordinance.

Board members and staff clarified jurisdictional limits: the Zoning Board’s review was limited to the front-yard setback variance for the proposed porch, and it cannot resolve broader private drainage disputes. Board counsel/staff (Mr. Wenzel) and another board member urged the interested parties that civil or municipal-court remedies exist for ongoing drainage disputes and that, if they wish to pursue proof, they may need an independent engineer or legal complaint.

Commissioner Eisenman made a motion to approve the variance, which Commissioner Perez seconded. The motion carried with six votes in favor and one abstention; the board adopted a stipulation, entered into the approval resolution, asking the applicant to extend the new structure’s downspouts/pipe run toward the front so water is directed to the street. Mr. Wenzel stated the stipulation would be added to the resolution and announced: “The motion passes 6 in favor of 1 abstention.”

Discussion versus action: the record distinguishes concerns raised by neighbors (a discussion of alleged flooding and property‑line drainage), board direction (a request that the applicant extend leaders/downspouts for the new porch to the front and staff confirmation that the stipulation will be placed in the resolution), and formal action (the approval of the front-yard setback variance). The board repeatedly told the interested parties that the zoning hearing does not substitute for the judicial or enforcement processes that address private drainage claims.

The board moved on to routine resolutions after the vote, including approvals and withdrawals listed on the evening’s agenda.