Berkeley Heights zoning board approves second‑story and rear addition at 41 Eaton Court

The Berkeley Heights Board of Adjustment on June 25 approved an application to add a second story and a two‑story rear addition at 41 Eaton Court, concluding the project preserves existing nonconforming front‑ and side‑yard setbacks and will be subject to stormwater and soil‑movement permitting.

The addition, presented by applicant Jerry Shank and architect Roby Wood, keeps the roof height at about 27 feet and remains under the township’s lot‑coverage limits, the architect said. Wood characterized the design as a vertical expansion intended to avoid spreading additional coverage across the lot and to avoid construction in an identified flood area behind the property.

Why it matters: neighbors told the board the rear of the property is in an environmentally sensitive flood area, and the board made stormwater protections a condition of approval. Neighbor Sandra Ksmeck, who said she has lived next door since 1964, told the board, “I have seen the water level come up to the stoop of at the back,” and urged care in construction near the tributary.

Wood walked the board through site context and an exhibit showing the house’s relationship to the 50‑foot right‑of‑way and neighboring setbacks. He said the property sits on a trapezoidal lot with an existing 10‑foot easement along the left side; the project does not propose new encroachment into that easement. The team said the addition will include a basement and that excavation soils will be removed from the site, with a stormwater management plan and soil‑movement permit required if the application advances.

Board members pressed the applicant on the easement and driveway location. The board signaled that, should portion(s) of the driveway or house remain within the municipal easement, a municipal hold‑harmless agreement would be an appropriate condition so that homeowners agree to restore property if the municipality needs access.

Public comment focused on flood concerns and maintaining neighbor property. Sandra Ksmeck said she had seen water reach the rear stoop in prior years and urged caution; another neighbor, Terry Carlini, sought clarity on the easement and was told the homeowner would be responsible for restoring any driveway disturbed by municipal access.

After closing the public portion, the board voted to approve the application with the conditions discussed — including requiring the stormwater management plan and compliance with any soil‑movement permit requirements — and directed the applicant to work with staff. The chair said the resolution will be prepared and available next month.

The approval carries standard conditions; the applicant was told to coordinate with borough staff on plan finalization and timing.