Clark Township board approves variance for 99 Charlotte Drive, with conditions on drainage, trees and fencing

The Clark Township Board of Adjustment on Nov. 2024 approved a variance that will allow a new single-family home at 99 Charlotte Drive to exceed the borough's building-coverage limit, provided conditions addressing drainage, fencing and trees are met.

The board voted to approve calendar case 4-24 after the applicant's architect, Rui Amaral, told the panel the owner seeks a ground-floor master bedroom and that the proposed footprint would increase building coverage to 17.2 percent, above the 15 percent allowed. Amaral said the proposal produces a roughly 2,500-square-foot footprint and that other zoning requirements, including front and side setbacks and impervious-lot coverage (about 30 percent), would meet township rules.

Owner Richard Cormier, who identified himself as the property owner, told the board he wanted the master bedroom on the first floor for medical and age-related reasons: "I'm 63 now, so, the stairs is a little bit of a problem," he said.

Neighbors urged the board to condition any approval on mitigations. Jim Robbins (25 Fairview) asked whether town-owned acreage had been used to compute lot boundaries; the applicant said the parcel is a legally existing lot created in a 2014 subdivision and that no public property was added to the lot. Several residents raised concerns that building on the open lot would reduce flood-absorption capacity and increase localized flooding during heavy rains. Joel Gamow, a homeowner at 37 Fairview, said the infill would make the area feel "densely packed" and raised privacy and flooding concerns. Margaret Nowrowski said she worries about removing older trees and about an underground stream beneath the neighborhood.

Architect Amaral described the site's drainage features and an existing easement with a catch basin. He said roof leaders and proposed drainage would run into that easement and that, if existing private drain lines are encountered during construction, the work would reroute or connect them so water continues to reach the catch basin rather than be capped. "We can reroute it," Amaral said of private lines found on site.

Board members acknowledged that the variance request itself is narrowly focused on building coverage (about 2.2 percentage points over the 15 percent limit) but argued that neighbors' concerns about trees, fencing and stormwater are valid items to address as conditions of approval. The board therefore included conditions requiring that the building department and the township engineer review and approve drainage plans, any proposed fencing and tree planting. The board chair also recorded an agreement that the applicant will replace the five trees identified for removal; the board stated replacement plantings must be to the township engineer's satisfaction and that required street trees must be installed.

A roll-call vote was taken after a motion to approve the application with the stated conditions; all members present voted yes and the motion carried. The chair said a written resolution will be prepared for the next meeting; once that resolution is adopted, the applicant may submit building permits and proceed with review by the building department.

The board's approval does not eliminate the need for building-permit review or for the applicant to comply with any engineering requirements the building department or township engineer imposes as part of permit issuance.

The board adjourned after the vote; the variance resolution will appear on the agenda at the next meeting.