Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Jurisdiction Continuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board carries large Garbaldi Place addition to July 21 while applicants review Planning Board jurisdiction
Summary
The Zoning Board carried the application for an extensive two‑story addition at 982 Garbaldi Place to its July 21 meeting after staff and applicants raised the possibility the project may exceed the municipality's >50% demolition threshold and therefore belong before the Planning Board.
The Washington Township Zoning Board on June 16 carried the application by Brian Giblin (agenda: "Giblin") for a two‑story addition and front porch at 982 Garbaldi Place to its July 21 meeting so the applicant can determine whether the project exceeds the municipality’s >50% demolition threshold and therefore should be heard by the Planning Board.
The application requests three variances: increased impervious coverage (plans show about 47.9% vs. a 40% maximum), increased building coverage (plans show about 23.3% vs. a 20% maximum), and a modest height variance (roughly 1.5 feet). The applicant’s architect (identified in the record by the given name spelled out in testimony) described a two‑story layout with 9‑foot ceilings on both floors and said reducing floor‑to‑ceiling height to 8 feet would lower the overall building height by approximately two feet.
A member of the public asked whether lowering ceilings to 8 feet would remove the need for a height variance; the architect confirmed it would. Board members then raised a separate concern: the project team indicated more than 50% of the existing structure may be demolished or rebuilt, which—by local practice cited by the board—would place the matter before the Planning Board rather than the Zoning Board. The board’s engineer noted that the board’s ordinance and long‑standing practice treat the 50% threshold as based on perimeter linear feet of exterior walls remaining; roof removal alone is not determinative.
Because the threshold determination affects the proper venue and required public notice, the applicant agreed to extend the board’s review period and the board carried the application to its July 21 meeting without the need for a new notice so the applicant can confirm whether the plan will remain before this board or must be filed with the Planning Board. The board explained that if the plan is revised to fall under 50% demolition, it can proceed here; if not, the applicant must refile with the Planning Board.
