Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Application topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board carries addition application after questions on foundation alignment, drainage and easement plantings
Summary
A homeowner's proposal to add a second-floor addition and rear family room was carried so the applicant can submit larger, clearer plans and stormwater details; staff also flagged potential drainage-easement impacts and removal of two beech trees.
The Allendale Land Use Board carried a public hearing on an application to add a second-floor addition, covered rear porch and family room to a split-level home after members and staff identified plan ambiguities, drainage questions and potential easement impacts.
The application (described in filings as an addition to lot 15, block 1904) was presented with exhibits A1–A6, including survey, photos and architectural plans. The applicant’s representative and a licensed engineer described the proposed work: a rear family room, a full second-floor addition over one half of the house, a covered porch and replacement of exterior siding and mechanicals. The representative said the property is undersized relative to the zone (the lot measures about 19,652 square feet) and emphasized the principal hardship is the original house footprint’s unusual orientation, built circa 1959–1960, which creates a nonconforming corner.
Board members and staff raised specific technical concerns. Staff requested clearer, larger plan sets that explicitly distinguish existing foundation walls from proposed new foundation construction; one board member suggested the architectural basement/foundation drawings were difficult to read and might show a new foundation offset that would further reduce the side-yard setback. The worst-case projection discussed at the hearing would place a new corner about 15.6 feet from the side property line versus the borough’s 20-foot (and sometimes referenced 21.7-foot enhanced) side-yard standard, prompting the need for a variance.
Stormwater management was also a topic. The applicant proposed directing roof runoff to a front-yard seepage pit and provided calculations; staff asked that runoff be checked both by change in impervious coverage and by peak runoff flow and recommended confirming any overflow tie-in to an existing roadway catch basin given an existing 15-foot drainage easement along the westerly side of the lot. Board staff noted that plantings or fences in the easement could create maintenance liabilities if the borough must access underground piping.
The applicant confirmed two beech trees (roughly 10-inch caliper) at the right side of the house are proposed to be removed. The board directed the applicant to submit 10 full-size paper sets and a PDF with larger legible drawings, lighting fixture locations and specifications, and additional stormwater/runoff calculations; the hearing was carried to December 10 (or January 14 if necessary) to preserve public notice while the applicant prepares revised materials.
No public speakers opposed the application at the hearing, and no final variance decision was made at the meeting; the board emphasized that clearer foundation alignment in the plans and verified drainage connections are required before any final action.
