Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves rear-yard variance for 34 Seneca Drive after engineer and architect testimony
Summary
The Old Tappan board approved a rear-yard setback variance for a two-story addition at 34 Seneca Drive, finding hardship related to lot shape and the existing structure; the board noted heavy yard screening and negligible change in impervious coverage.
The Borough of Old Tappan planning board approved a rear-yard setback variance on Dec. 10 for a two-story addition at 34 Seneca Drive after hearing testimony from the applicant’s engineer and architect.
Engineer Kenneth Degenero testified that the lot is about 29,000 square feet in an R-25 zone and that squaring off an existing 13-by-14 sunroom for a year-round structure would change the rear-yard setback from 30.1 feet to about 29.2 feet — roughly 11 inches. “There were no wetlands or floodplains on the property, and there is no significant increase in impervious area,” Degenero said.
Architect Joseph Donato described plans dated Aug. 3, 2025, showing a 196-square-foot rebuilt first-floor area and a second-floor bedroom over the existing sunroom. Donato and Degenero told the board the proposed floor-area ratio would rise from about 0.11 to about 0.14 under conservative calculations, and that the addition would not increase building height over the existing structure.
Board reviewers noted the impervious-area increase is nominal (about 3 square feet), so no stormwater management is required for the work. The borough engineer’s review and the applicant’s photographs showed the rear yard is heavily wooded and screened; the board said that screening and the distance to neighboring houses reduced the likelihood of a negative impact.
On that basis the board found the two statutory c-variance proofs — that physical characteristics of the lot and the structure make strict compliance impracticable — and voted to approve the variance. The clerk called the eligible voters and recorded affirmative responses for the motion.
The approval includes the condition that final plans label proposed heights and that the architect incorporate the agreed floor-area calculations on the architectural plans. The board noted that any later decision to finish attic space or otherwise change the FAR could require separate permits or review.
