Zoning board approves renovation at 260 Oak Ridge Avenue with steep-slope and FAR relief

The Summit Zoning Board of Adjustment voted Jan. 8 to approve a renovation and addition at 260 Oak Ridge Avenue proposed by Sarah McGrath Bloom and Jack Bloom. The plan will preserve and modernize a 1930s Georgian Colonial while adding two flanking side wings and a rear family-room/kitchen addition. The board granted variances for number of stories/finished basement, average building height (technical variance), steep‑slope disturbance, and a small floor‑area ratio (FAR) increase of about 0.7 percentage points.

Sarah McGrath Bloom told the board she and her husband grew up in the area and bought the house to raise their growing family in Summit. She said the house “has not been updated in decades” and needs substantial infrastructure work including heating, cooling, plumbing, electrical and stormwater improvements. Architect Jack Kelly and civil engineer Andrew Clark testified for the applicants and described a program to preserve the house’s character while making functional interior and infrastructure upgrades.

The applicants’ team explained the site’s topography: the lot (about 27,815 square feet) drops roughly 25 feet from the street to the county reservation at the rear and contains multiple pockets of steep slope greater than the 15% threshold used in the municipal ordinance. Because the existing house sits in the steepest portion of the lot, the cellar is partly above grade and is counted as a story under the ordinance; that existing condition led to the “story above grade” and related height calculations. The proposal adds modest building area in the rear and two side wings while keeping building coverage and lot coverage well below ordinance maximums (building coverage at roughly 11% and lot coverage at about 21% of the lot).

Civil engineer Andrew Clark explained that the project will disturb several steep‑slope areas during construction but that most will be restored, and he recommended standard construction-period erosion controls and a final stormwater system sized to capture the entire roof area and an inlet to pick up driveway runoff. Clark emphasized the plans will exceed the ordinary permit requirement for captured runoff (the team said the system will manage more than the increase in impervious surface required by the city) and that the applicants are committed to the city-engineer review and necessary design changes.

Board professionals reviewed attic‑and‑habitable‑space calculations. The architect provided supplemental calculations to show the proposed attic area meets the city’s attic/story rules as well as the New Jersey Uniform Construction Code test for habitable attics; the planner confirmed those numbers show the attic is not a separate story under both methods of measurement.

The board recorded a number of conditions in the approval motion: compliance with the board-engineer memorandum, submission of a landscaping plan to the city forester for review and approval (the applicants previously removed several trees under a city tree permit and agreed to replacement plantings), coordination and final approval of a revised stormwater design to re-route leaders away from a low garage and reduce risk of basement/garage flooding, and standard soil‑erosion controls during construction. The board also required the applicant to show any mechanical equipment and generators will be screened.

The vote was recorded by roll call and carried. Those recorded as voting in favor in the transcript included Steiner, Leikens (chair), Yuko, Nelson, Zahn, Kieran, Chifo and Feskins. The board emphasized the proposal preserves the house’s character while improving energy efficiency and safety and noted the FAR increase (to 25.7%) was driven in part by basement floor area that is counted because of the site topography.

Discussion versus decision: the hearing included detailed testimony about existing conditions, technical attic calculations, steep‑slope disturbance and stormwater design; the board’s decision authorized the variances and recorded conditions to address the board professionals’ concerns. The board also required the usual two‑year jurisdiction and permit compliance measures.