Midwood Avenue second‑floor plan carried after board presses applicant on FAR, safety and precedent

An applicant seeking permission to add a full second floor to a undersized house at 58 Midwood Avenue asked the Allendale Land Use Board on March 11 to grant multiple variances, but the board said the most important test is the heightened floor‑area‑ratio (D4) standard and agreed to carry the application so the applicant can submit revised plans and additional evidence.

The applicant, who testified he is a licensed architect with “43 years” of experience, told the board he planned to keep the existing first‑floor footprint and convert attic area into three modest bedrooms and a primary suite. He described the lot as 9,000 square feet (the ordinance requires 20,000) and the lot width as 75 feet (versus 115 required), and said many requested variances stem from those preexisting conditions. “The variances are very de minimis,” the applicant said, arguing the porch and small step encroachments had negligible impact and that the porch would improve curb appeal.

Board counsel and several board members pushed back that the floor‑area‑ratio variance is the heaviest legal burden. “The bigger variance you have remains the D4,” counsel said, urging the board’s focus on whether the site can accommodate the proposed massing without compromising light, air, open space, stormwater management or the streetscape. Counsel added that while individual encroachments can be small, the board must judge the package’s overall quality as a site‑suitability inquiry rather than counting variances individually.

During detailed questioning, members asked about steps and landing sizes, the proposed chimney (which would encroach into the side setback), the 2.9‑foot clearance between a rear step and an existing L‑shaped garage, tree and landscape buffering, and how the applicant calculated gross building area (GBA) and building coverage. The applicant said the existing detached garage and a previously opened porch contribute materially to the lot’s current FAR and building‑coverage totals; he offered to reduce or reconfigure elements (push the front step back, recess the chimney, alter the rear landing or convert some roofed space to open porches) to address concerns.

The board’s planner and counsel repeatedly noted the applicant would need stronger proof for the D4/FAR relief — evidence that the neighborhood context and on‑site stormwater and light/air conditions would not be harmed and that the proposal does not set an undesirable precedent. A board member raised a precedent concern: small individual variances can accumulate into a larger intensification if allowed repeatedly on similar lots.

After discussion the applicant agreed to prepare alternative plans and supporting materials (stormwater or FAR calculations, revised elevations and photo exhibits). The board took a consent to continue to the April 22 meeting so the applicant can present revisions rather than moving immediately to a vote.

What happens next: The applicant will return with revised plans and additional documentation at the April 22 Land Use Board meeting. The board’s questions about FAR, stormwater and streetscape compatibility will be central to whether the D4 relief is granted.

Clarifying details from the record: the applicant stated the lot area is about 9,000 sq ft (regulation: 20,000 sq ft), lot width 75 ft (regulation: 115 ft), existing building coverage 20.8% (allowed 15%) and overage in gross building area of about 324 sq ft due largely to an oversized garage; several encroachments cited were inches to a few feet. The applicant said he had already opened a screened porch and removed some enclosed wall to reduce FAR by roughly 172 sq ft.