Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Highlands land use board approves variances to allow single-family home at 35 Miller Street
Summary
The Bureau of Highlands Land Use Board approved multiple bulk variances for 35 Miller Street — including lot-width, lot-area, setbacks and building coverage — allowing the applicant to replace a derelict structure with a three-bedroom single-family home subject to standard conditions and engineer sign-off.
The Bureau of Highlands Land Use Board voted to approve application LUB25-09 on a motion that included C1 and C2 bulk-variance findings, allowing a new single-family home at 35 Miller Street despite multiple lot nonconformities.
The applicant told the board they purchased the long-vacant property in February and proposed demolishing the derelict building to construct a three-bedroom, raised single-family home with two garage spaces and internal provision for a future elevator. Board members heard testimony that the lot is 2,000 square feet (4,000 sq ft required for the zone) and just 25 feet wide (50 ft required). The applicant said the proposal also requires relief from front, rear and side setbacks and from a proposed building coverage of 53.2% where 33% is the zoning maximum.
Board members and staff discussed the design and technical details: the applicant and architect described an internal staircase layout, off-street parking for two cars in the garage plus a driveway space, future elevator pre-wiring, and floodproofing measures (elevated finished floor, block and flood vents) to comply with FEMA/NJ flood-hazard rules. The applicant presented a neighborhood-prevailing-setback analysis (a document marked A3) and requested a 15-foot front-yard setback, asserting that nearby homes often sit forward of the 20-foot standard.
The board reviewed ordinance provisions specific to pre-existing, nonconforming vacant lots and received legal guidance that the section cited (21-98 F.1) can be read in different ways but does not eliminate the need to decide variances under the municipal standard. The board considered both the C1 hardship arguments (narrowness and lot shape) and the C2/flexible criteria and weighed negative criteria (no substantial detriment to the zoning scheme or neighborhood).
A motion to approve the application was made subject to standard conditions — including extinguishment of an easement affecting access if necessary and completion of items in the engineer's report and revised site documents — and was seconded. The board carried the motion on a roll-call vote and recorded multiple affirmations from voting members; the application will require final signoffs and site-plan details before a building permit may be issued.
What the board required and what remains: the resolution of approval includes conditions to address outstanding plan details the board engineer listed (site-plan signatures, consistent site-plan/site-elevation dimensions, drainage direction to the street, electric meter access, and confirmation of conservation-district exemption where applicable). The applicant agreed to provide the requested marked-up site and seal plans and to address any minor adjustments (for example, moving stairs or adjusting the foyer) to ensure two cars can use the proposed garage without obstruction.
The board concluded the matter and congratulated the applicants on the decision. The applicant may proceed to resolution-compliance submissions and obtain the required signoffs prior to permit issuance.
