Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves patio‑cover variance for Gladman at 88 Veil with conditions
Summary
The Old Tappan Planning Board approved a variance allowing a roughly 600‑square‑foot covered patio at 88 Veil, subject to conditions: no permanent enclosure (only retractable screens), no heating or air conditioning, and acknowledgment of preexisting lot‑coverage nonconformity.
The Borough of Old Tappan Planning Board voted to approve a variance request from the Gladman family to add a roughly 600‑square‑foot covered patio and outdoor kitchen at 88 Veil, the board announced after its Aug. 14 hearing.
Applicant testimony from Mr. Gladman (speaker 8) described the proposal as a covered — but not enclosed — extension of an existing patio that would include an outdoor kitchen and fireplace and would remain open air. "It's a continuation of something that's already there," Gladman said, adding the build would be quick and that the screens proposed are retractable.
Board counsel and the borough engineer questioned whether the proposed roof over the patio counts as additional floor area under the borough's floor‑area‑ratio (FAR) rules. Counsel explained the application was treated as a D4 use variance, meaning the applicant must show the site can accommodate the use and deviation but does not carry the enhanced burden required for other use variances.
The board conditioned approval on several items discussed in the hearing: the covered area must remain open (no permanent walls), only seasonal/retractable screens are allowed, and no heating or air‑conditioning units or permanent utilities may be installed in the covered area. The board also noted existing preexisting nonconforming lot coverage on the property and asked for that to be memorialized in the approval.
During public comment, abutter Jason Fox (7 Greenwood Road) spoke in support of the application, saying he had "absolutely no objection" and did not expect the project to impinge on his view of the lake. No other members of the public registered opposition.
A motion to approve the application with the stated conditions passed; members on the record recorded affirmative votes and the board instructed staff to memorialize the conditions in the resolution.
The board's approval included a request that the applicant supply the detailed application numbers and drawings referenced at the hearing so staff can finalize records and conditions. The board indicated it will document the property’s current nonconforming lot coverage as part of the approval.
