Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the FAR Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves 7 Taft Court variance after debate about floor‑area cap and Master Plan
Summary
After extended argument over the legal standard for HFAR/D‑4 variances and the lot’s irregular shape, the Livingston Board of Adjustment approved a 178‑square‑foot habitable floor area variance for 7 Taft Court; counsel cited Randolph Town Center precedent and the board attached easement conditions.
The Livingston Board of Adjustment on Nov. 25 approved a 178‑square‑foot habitable floor area variance for a new single‑family house at 7 Taft Court, after counsel and the project architect defended the request in the context of the township master plan and appellate precedent.
Counsel Steven Shempis told the board that the proper standard for a D‑4/FAR variance is not a benefits‑to‑the‑neighborhood test but whether the site can accommodate the problems associated with added floor area. He quoted appellate guidance and urged the board to apply that standard: “the applicant for such FAR/D‑4 variance need not show that the site is particularly suited for the more intensive development...rather...the site will accommodate the problems associated with a floor area larger than permitted.” He summarized for the board, “So with that being the standard of proof, we submit to you that the site can accommodate the additional floor area.”
Architect John Babula and counsel said the subject lot is roughly 40% larger than the ordinance minimum for the district (the parties discussed differing cited minimums during testimony) and that the new house would meet setbacks, be under the maximum height and remain under building coverage limits. Babula described the proposed modern farmhouse design and noted there is no habitable attic space; counsel also said the house is narrower than what ordinance would otherwise permit and therefore less intrusive on neighbors.
One board member said he was concerned that adding floor area solely because a lot is large in the rear could undermine the ordinance’s cap on habitable area; another member noted the applicant had reduced width and improved some nonconforming setbacks to address those concerns. Counsel responded by citing Randolph Town Center v. Township of Randolph (324 N.J. Super. 416) and arguing the record shows the site will accommodate the additional 178 square feet without substantially impairing the zoning plan. The board voted to grant the variance with a condition preserving township easements and with the usual permit‑stage civil reviews.
The approval carries standard follow‑up: applicant must reflect the easement protections in construction plans and supply any required civil engineering drainage/stormwater information during permitting. The decision was made on Nov. 25; the Melrose Drive application on the same agenda was adjourned to Dec. 9.
