Edgewater board approves revised 8 Maple Street two‑family with conditions after neighbor objections

The Borough of Edgewater Board of Adjustment on April 15 approved a revised application to demolish the existing house at 8 Maple Street and build a two‑family dwelling, after the applicant and design team reduced the project’s height and other bulk variances and the board attached conditions intended to limit future conversion and rooftop utility connections.

Attorney Carmine Alampi told the board the design team could lower main‑floor ceiling heights by 6 inches on each level as a concession to reduce the overall height and ease several variances. "On the record, 6 inches off the ceiling height of main level," Alampi said, adding the reduction would remove some height-related variances.

Neighbors said the project would still be harmful. "It’s going to impair our main floor view, blocking air, light and views," said Mark Gorenstein of 910 Undercliff Avenue, who urged denial and said the change would reduce his property’s value. Multiple residents also questioned the size and placement of seepage pits and whether the drainage design adequately accounted for runoff.

Architect Hojoon Chung described the revised plans dated March 25 and April 15, 2026: two identical residential units with two‑car garages, rooftop terraces with glass railings, and reduced bump‑outs. The plans showed the structure’s highest point exceeded the ordinance by roughly 2½ feet before the agreed reductions; architects and engineers said the revisions eliminated several side‑yard and maximum‑height variances and reduced building coverage and impervious surface increases.

Engineer Steven Koestner summarized drainage work showing proposed seepage pits and piping. He said the seepage pits were sized based on a 10‑year, one‑hour standard and that the revised design represented an improvement over existing on‑site conditions, though some neighbors pushed for additional testing and clearer overflow routing. "It’s definitely an improvement," Koestner said about the drainage revisions.

Planner/photographer David Spatz presented photos and analysis showing the revised elevations and argued the changes made the project more consistent with the neighborhood. The applicant’s attorney restated concessions: elimination of basement bump‑outs and removal of a basement full bathroom.

After deliberation the board approved the application with conditions specifically recorded on the motion: the basement full bathroom will be removed (to reduce conversion risk), there will be no gas connection on the roof, and the rear deck will be reduced from the presented plans. The motion was made by Chairman Christiansen and seconded by Haig Shirinian.

The approval drew continuing objections from neighbors about light, view and neighborhood fit. The chair responded to view concerns by noting property owners do not have a legal right to a view. The record also reflects questions about whether all design paperwork and prior extensions listed in the minutes align with building‑department filings; the board said staff would review the paperwork and return with clarification.

The board’s action allows the applicant to proceed subject to the recorded conditions and any required building‑department permits.