Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Setback Entry Platform Vs Porch topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board upholds officer: 7 Mohican Place appeal denied over attached portico
Summary
The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment denied an appeal from homeowners Jeffrey and Armanda Pitard seeking to attach a 25‑sq.‑ft. covered entry (entry/egress platform) to a larger front porch. The board found the connected structure reads as a porch, which cannot encroach into the front‑yard setback without a variance.
The Cranford Zoning Board of Adjustment on the evening of Aug. 11 upheld the zoning officer’s interpretation that a connected covered entry and adjacent porch constitute a porch — not a permitted 25‑square‑foot entry platform — and denied an appeal by homeowners Jeffrey and Armanda Pitard for 7 Mohican Place.
Architect Richard Pierce testified that the Pitards’ design would leave only a small triangular 25‑square‑foot portion of the proposed covered area within the required front‑yard setback and that the remainder of the porch would be built as‑of‑right outside the setback. He argued the code does not require that a permitted covered entry be “freestanding” and asked the board to treat that 25‑square‑foot portion as an entry platform, which the ordinance allows to encroach. “If every homeowner in Cranford is allowed to encroach 25 square feet into the front yard setback, why aren’t we allowed?” Pierce said.
Zoning officer Kathleen Nemeth and the board’s planner told the board the ordinance language differentiates an entrance platform (an egress or entry platform of 25 square feet or less) from a porch; a porch establishes a new front‑yard setback and may not encroach. The zoning officer explained that the proposed connected structure would read to a lay observer as a porch and therefore would not qualify for the entry‑platform exception. “A porch is like an entertainment space,” the board’s planner said, while an entry platform is intended only to permit egress and ingress.
Board members repeatedly urged the applicant to pursue a variance if they wanted a connected porch and covered entry, noting a variance process would limit relief to that property rather than change the townwide interpretation of the ordinance. Several board members described the request as reasonable for variance relief but said the appeal — which asks the board to overrule the zoning officer’s interpretation for all properties — was not the correct vehicle.
After deliberation, the board voted to deny the appeal. The motion to deny carried on a roll‑call vote (yes to deny): Burns, Vidwans, Reese, Sikorski, Aschenbach, Murata and Daly (7–0). The denial leaves the zoning officer’s interpretation in place and requires the Pitards to apply for variance relief if they wish to proceed with the connected porch as designed.
The board’s chair closed the hearing and the applicant thanked the board before leaving the meeting.
