Clark Township Board of Adjustment approves porch variance for 12 Florence Drive, agrees conditions on sheds and permit timing

The Clark Township Board of Adjustment on Aug. 26 approved a bulk variance for 12 Florence Drive allowing a widened front porch to intrude into the 25-foot front-yard setback and agreed to regularize three existing backyard sheds, subject to conditions and formal memorialization at the board’s next meeting.

Donald B. Fraser Jr., an attorney with Grama, Fraser and Forrester representing owner Brenda Alborn, told the board the property is slightly out of compliance on impervious coverage (about 50.4% versus the 50% maximum noted on the submitted survey) but that the applicant would remove paved area if the relief were granted to bring the lot into compliance. Fraser also said the house itself sits about 24.61 feet from the front lot line, and the proposed porch would result in roughly a 5.5-foot intrusion into the required setback.

Brenda Alborn, sworn and testifying in support of her application, said the porch is intended to provide a safer landing and railing for her 85-year-old father, who uses a crutch and is unsteady on his feet. "Right now as it stands, I have an 85 year old father who walks with a crutch and he's a bit unsteady on his feet," Alborn said when explaining the request.

Neighbors spoke in favor. Felix Guevara, who identified himself as a neighbor at 8 Florence (two doors down), told the board he supported granting the permit, saying the Alborns were "great neighbors."

Board members and counsel discussed two compliance details: the township’s numerical limit of one shed per lot and the different regulation on building coverage. Counsel presented measurements for the three sheds (about 44, 43 and 73 square feet) totaling roughly 150 square feet and said building coverage permitted in the zone is 30% while the property’s existing building coverage is roughly 22.34%; with the sheds included the property would remain under about 26% building coverage. Fraser argued that the numeric limit on number of sheds is the ordinance’s concern rather than exceeding building coverage percentages.

During deliberations the board confirmed the applicant’s statement that the proposed porch would be uncovered (the small covered landing at the door would remain). The applicant’s contractor was identified as DEC Express, and counsel affirmed the applicant would obtain required building permits and comply with construction codes. The board discussed hardship and the long-standing presence of the sheds; counsel said the applicant would accept a condition to remove one shed if the board required it, though the board ultimately indicated it would permit the existing arrangement under the agreed conditions.

A motion to approve the application was made and seconded; the chair called for a roll call. The board indicated five members were present and that a majority vote would decide the matter. The board instructed staff to memorialize the approval in writing at the next meeting; counsel warned the applicant not to begin construction or seek a permit before memorialization, noting a permit commonly will not be issued until that written resolution appears and that work done before memorialization could be at risk if appealed.

The board’s action will be memorialized at the next meeting; once that written resolution is adopted the applicant may apply for and receive a building permit consistent with the conditions the board attached.

Authorities and conditions: the board cited compliance with the local zoning ordinance provisions reflected on the submitted survey (impervious coverage limit at 50%, building coverage limit at 30%, and a numeric cap of one accessory shed per lot). The board recorded the condition that the approved porch remain uncovered (as stated in the application). The board also recorded on the record the applicant’s representation that paved area will be reduced to resolve the impervious-coverage exceedance.

What happens next: the board will memorialize its decision in writing at the next meeting and the applicant may obtain a building permit thereafter; counsel advised against beginning construction until the memorialization is complete to avoid possible appeals or permit denials.