Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies plan for new house at narrow 30 Bayst Avenue lot
Summary
The Sayreville Zoning Board on June 24 voted to deny variances for a new single‑family home on an undersized, narrow lot at 30 Bayst Avenue after concerns about lot size, building coverage, and fire‑safety access; denial was by roll call vote and memorialization will be recorded.
The Sayreville Zoning Board of Adjustment voted June 24 to deny an application to replace an existing small dwelling with a new single‑family home at 30 Bayst Avenue.
Charles D. Willing III represented applicant Giovanni Alba, and architect Robert Larson presented revised plans that reduced building coverage to 35% and widened one sideyard to 5 feet following prior board comment. Larson said the revised house would be approximately 1,900 square feet, three bedrooms and a one‑car garage, and argued the design responds to board input.
Board members and public commenters raised recurring concerns: the lot is an existing nonconforming, narrow parcel (applicant said the lot is roughly 3,100 sq ft and that the owner purchased it in 2022), sideyard relief remains substantial (combined sideyard required is 20 ft; applicants proposed a combined 8 ft), and total impervious coverage remained high (applicant proposed ~49%). Multiple board members and a resident also questioned whether emergency and fire access, grading and building code compliance could be assured on a house this close to property lines.
Architect Robert Larson and board professionals said the project would require additional grading changes and a building‑permit stage fire official review; the architect testified he would design appropriate fire‑rated construction where required but acknowledged the plan depends on later subcode signoffs.
After public comment and deliberation the board moved to deny the application. The roll call vote recorded unanimous votes to deny the application, and the board clerk announced the motion carried.
The board recorded that memorialization of the denial would be handled according to standard procedure; the applicant may revise plans and return to the board in a future hearing.
