Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors, planners press for numbers and limits as owners seek floor‑area ratio relief for 5 Parker Place
Summary
An applicant seeking to rebuild a home at 5 Parker Place after a 2022 fire asked the Old Tappan Planning Board for variances tied to floor‑area ratio, stories and related rules. Board members and professionals requested clearer FAR math, stormwater comparisons and limits on a proposed shed and garage before continuing the matter.
The Planning Board heard one hour of testimony on a rebuild at 5 Parker Place after a November 2022 fire, during which the applicant’s team described demolishing damaged framing, reusing foundation elements and “squaring off” portions of the house to simplify construction. Dean Samuels, counsel for the applicant, introduced the project and the team; the architect said the proposed house would total about 7,167 square feet and produce a floor‑area ratio (FAR) around 22.61 percent, exceeding the borough standard.
Board members pressed for precise calculations and limits. The borough engineer asked for a revised FAR table that clarifies whether the new, attached third garage bay is fully counted or receives the 400‑sq‑ft garage exemption. The board also discussed attic height and whether attic areas that average 7 feet or more should be treated as stories and counted in FAR. “If that became a story … then wouldn’t that technically count as floor area?” a board member asked during deliberations. The applicant’s architect said the attic is intended to be non‑habitable and that attic access would be by ladder, and the team offered to revise drawings and provide calculations.
Stormwater and pre‑existing nonconformities were also central. The applicant reported two seepage pits sized to meet the net increase requirement; the borough engineer asked for a comparison showing what impervious area had been collected before the fire so the board could confirm the new system actually stores more runoff than the prior configuration. The planner and board asked the applicant to remove or limit a proposed accessory shed to 150 square feet (to avoid adding to the FAR) and to re‑examine curb cuts and garage placement to reduce apparent bulk from the street.
Next procedural step: the board asked the applicant to submit amended plans and a clarified calculation table ahead of the October meeting. No final vote was taken; the applicant agreed to return with revised documentation and potential concessions on attic height, the shed and garage sizing.
