Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks multiple variances to add second floor at 58 Midwood Ave.; board flags floor‑area ratio as central hurdle
Summary
The owner and licensed architect for 58 Midwood Avenue sought approval to add a modest second story while keeping the house footprint, asking multiple bulk and floor‑area variances; the board said small design edits could remove several variances but that the D4 floor‑area‑ratio test remains the key legal obstacle and advised the applicant to return with revised plans.
The Allendale Planning Board heard detailed testimony and extensive questioning on an application to add a second floor at 58 Midwood Avenue (application 2026‑03).
Mr. Schlick, the property owner and the applicant, identified himself for the record as the owner and a licensed architect and told the board, "I've been practicing architecture for 43 years." He described a proposal that keeps the first‑floor footprint while adding modest, traditional second‑floor rooms, a small porch and architectural detailing to better fit the neighborhood scale.
Why it matters: the property sits on an undersized lot by code (applicant cited 9,000 sq ft vs. 20,000 sq ft required), producing a suite of bulk variances (lot width and depth, front/side/rear setbacks, building coverage and gross building area) and a floor‑area (FAR/D4) increase. The board told the applicant that several of the listed variances are individually small and could be eliminated by design changes — for example, recessing the front step into the porch, enlarging the rear landing to meet code minima, or moving/recessing a small fireplace projection — but that satisfying the D4 floor‑area‑ratio standard is the principal challenge because it requires evidence the site can accommodate the added massing without undue impacts on light, air, open space, stormwater management or streetscape.
Board members and counsel pressed for documentary proof where the applicant asserted the conditions are "pre‑existing" and discussed strategies to reduce the F‑ratio impact, including removing or reconfiguring portions of an oversized L‑shaped garage that drive a large portion of the F calculation. Members flagged safety and egress concerns about a narrow rear platform and the proximity between the house and accessory structure and asked for plan revisions to show required landings and turning radii.
The applicant agreed to revise plans and supporting exhibits and said he could make many of the small changes suggested. The board advised he supply revised drawings and any documentary evidence related to pre‑existing conditions at least 10 days before the next meeting. The matter was carried to the next available public hearing on April 22 for further review of revised materials.
Next steps: Applicant to submit revised plans addressing the board’s listed mitigations; the board will re‑examine both the design changes and the legal proofs for the D4 floor‑area relief at the next hearing.
