Butler Planning Board denies use-variance application for 38 Lincoln Road development

The Butler Planning Board on June 18, 2026, voted 6–0–1 to deny a use-variance application from 38 Lincoln Road, LLC for a multi-unit development at 28–38 Lincoln Road. The motion to deny, made by Mr. Brown and seconded by Mr. Roche, cited numerous required variances for lot area, setbacks, density and coverage.

Board counsel and staff heard testimony from the applicant’s attorney, Richard Clemack, Esq., and an engineer, Nicky Kennedy of Stonefield Professional Engineers. Kennedy demonstrated — using a template — that a fire truck could navigate the proposed turnaround; the Board’s traffic engineer, Jack Desch, said he was satisfied with that demonstration. Clemack also presented before-and-after site renderings, said the plan would provide 24 parking spaces where 18 are required, described a widened street and said the project would not cause a significant increase in traffic. Clemack said the applicant would comply with COAH if required.

During public comment, Al Strumolo, speaking for relatives at 37 Lincoln Road, raised neighborhood concerns about snow removal, parking pressure and a fire hydrant that can become covered with snow. The Board closed the public portion after hearing those remarks.

Mr. Brown moved to deny the application, providing the Board with a list of the variances he said were required. The list included (verbatim from the applicant record): minimum lot area (5 acres required; 0.513 acres provided); reduced setbacks to the public street and to property lines; increased density (19.5 units per acre vs. 12 permitted); building coverage (23.2% in lieu of 20%); maximum impervious coverage (43% in lieu of 25%); minimum distance between buildings and driveway widths below required standards; reduced buffer width; reduced open space (20.4% in lieu of 30%); parking located in front of the building rather than the rear; and dumpster siting closer than required. The motion text and the enumerated variances were entered into the record prior to the vote.

Board counsel explained that five affirmative votes were required for passage of the motion and that, in this instance, a "yes" vote would deny the application. The roll call on the motion was: Roche (yes), Hammaker (yes), Brown (yes), Hough (yes), Reger (yes), Veneziano (yes); Vath (abstain). With six affirmative votes and one abstention, the motion to deny carried and the application was therefore denied.

The Board took no resolutions on other cases at this meeting; two other agenda items were carried to the Board’s next regular meeting on July 16, 2026. The Board approved minutes from May 21, 2026 and adjourned at 8:20 p.m.