Fair Haven zoning board carries corner‑lot house proposal after debate over porch, setbacks and utilities

The Fair Haven Zoning Board of Adjustment carried to its Feb. 12 meeting a variance application to rebuild a 1‑story ranch at the corner of Kemp Avenue and Laurel Drive after lengthy testimony and questions about setbacks, equipment placement and stormwater.

Mark Akins, counsel for the applicant, told the board the proposal would largely reuse the existing foundation to support a new 2½‑story dwelling and associated garage, and said the lot is undersized ‘‘at approximately 9,865 square feet where 11,500 square feet is required in the R‑10B zone.’’ He summarized the plan as preserving the existing foundation footprint while adding new area behind the house.

Why it matters: Board members pressed whether ‘‘reusing the existing foundation’’ would justify the variances, and whether design changes could avoid side‑yard encroachments for equipment. Chair and members repeatedly asked the applicants to show alternatives that would eliminate or reduce variances before the board votes.

Engineer Elizabeth Waterbury, who described and marked aerial and foundation exhibits, said most of the proposed dwelling overlies the red‑lined existing foundation and that the team would perform soil borings ‘‘should we get approval’’ to confirm cellar and dry‑well locations. She noted the project would keep the main dwelling at approximately the existing 25½‑foot front setback but that adding a covered porch or other roofed features requires a variance.

The board discussed parking under the Residential Site Improvement Standards: a 3‑bedroom house requires two spaces; the applicant proposes a 1‑car garage plus a double driveway that the engineer said qualifies as two spaces. Board counsel and the engineer identified a design waiver for location of parking on a corner lot.

Board engineer Tommy Jordan Rizzo highlighted stormwater and coverage changes and recommended infiltration where possible. Rizzo said impervious coverage would rise ‘‘from 24% to 40, almost 43%’’ and building coverage ‘‘from 15½ percent to 28½ percent,’’ and warned of potential runoff to lower neighboring yards if infiltration is not properly designed. The applicant agreed to soil borings and to coordinate dry‑well siting with the borough engineer.

Architect John Bridal told the board he had visually inspected the foundation and found the foundation walls ‘‘in exceptional condition with no apparent settling or cracking,’’ and said the design includes a wraparound porch, an elevated front porch of about 8 feet deep on primary facades, and a relocated garage on the secondary street to reduce traffic impacts at the intersection.

Still unresolved were the side‑yard setbacks for mechanicals and a side porch that would bring air‑conditioning equipment and a generator within the required side‑yard distances. Testimony cited measured equipment setbacks of about 8.1 feet for AC units and roughly 6.5 feet for the generator where the borough ordinance requires 10 feet. Several board members recommended moving or shielding equipment or pulling back porch elements to avoid variances.

After a five‑minute recess to confer, the board directed the applicant to return with revised drawings showing alternatives (for example, pulling the porch back, relocating AC/generator, or slight adjustments to the garage that could eliminate a 6‑inch prevailing‑setback shortfall). The board voted to carry the matter to the Feb. 12 meeting; counsel agreed to provide the customary letter extending the board’s time to decide.

Next steps: The applicant will submit revised plans and the soil‑boring results requested by the borough engineer. The board will take formal variance testimony and a vote at the continued hearing on Feb. 12.

Quotes used in this story are taken verbatim from the board transcript. The record shows the applicant, the engineer and the architect agreed to coordinate follow‑up steps; no final variances were approved at the meeting.