Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves variances for three‑car garage at 117 Undercliff Road with conditions
Summary
Montclair’s Zoning Board granted two variances allowing a detached three‑car garage at 117 Undercliff Road to exceed accessory‑building limits, subject to conditions including a 27‑foot maximum height, engineer review of drainage, matching retaining‑wall materials and storage‑only attic use.
The Montclair Zoning Board of Adjustment voted to approve two variances on June 17 allowing a detached three‑car garage at 117 Undercliff Road that exceeds the accessory‑structure height and length limits, subject to multiple conditions and engineering review.
Attorney Alan Tremulac, representing Michael and Annie Galassi, asked the board to grant relief so the applicants could build a garage proportionate to the large 2.65‑acre lot. ‘‘We'd ask that the board approve the two variances that we requested,’’ Tremulac said.
The board heard testimony from architect J.R. Frank and engineer/planner William Stimel. Frank described design revisions made after consultations with the Historic Preservation Commission, saying the garage would use matching stucco, coordinated window and trim colors and decorative garage doors ‘‘to be compatible with the existing Tudor‑style residence’’ and that attic access would be by pull‑down stairs for storage only.
Stimel told the board the application requires two variances: accessory‑building height and a maximum accessory dimension in one direction. He said the plans request roughly 27 feet where the ordinance permits 15 feet and that the proposed garage width is 36 feet where the R‑1 limit for accessory buildings is 24 feet. Stimel also provided impervious‑surface calculations, saying existing coverage is about 27.65% and would increase to about 29.55%, below the zone maximum of 35%.
Neighbors and board members raised technical questions about inconsistent elevations between architectural and engineering drawings (architect exhibits showed a finished floor elevation that differed from the site plan). The board and counsel agreed the plans should be reconciled before permits are issued. ‘‘We need to know what number we are approving,’’ a member said during questioning; board counsel recommended a conditional approval that capped allowable height and required the applicant to reconcile the drawings with the Planning Department.
Neighbor Ken O’Brien, who lives at 103 Undercliff Road, said he supported the design overall but asked about the appearance of a retaining wall. Architect Frank replied the new wall will match the existing keystone block system on the property and that landscaping will be added ‘‘to soften them up.’’ The applicant also agreed to a lighting plan limited to residential fixtures and motion sensors designed not to spill onto adjacent properties.
Before voting, board counsel read a set of conditions including incorporation of the revised architectural exhibit (A‑1), compliance with the Historic Preservation Commission report dated May 6, 2026, a height cap ‘‘not to exceed 27 feet,’’ limitation of the second‑level attic/storage to non‑habitable use, and compliance with the township engineer on stormwater management and erosion control. A motion to approve the application with those conditions was made, seconded and carried; one member recorded opposition.
The board’s action grants the requested C‑variance relief for the garage with the listed conditions; the applicants must reconcile plan discrepancies and satisfy the township engineer’s comments before building permits will be issued.
