At its March 26 meeting, the Livingston Zoning Board re-heard the cases for Abhishek Gangwal at 6 Hazelwood Avenue, and 44 North Ashby Ave., LLC, at 44 and 46 North Ashby Avenue, approving both applications. The Board then listened to three more cases during the course of the meeting, and ultimately approved all three of them.44 and 46 North Ashby Avenue At the February meeting, 44North Ashby Ave., LLC made a request to subdivide the parcel encompassing 44 and 46 North Ashby Avenue into two lots-Lots 1.01 and 12.01 - and to rearrange their layouts to be more symmetrical. Additionally, a house on 12.01 would be tom down and replaced with a different two-story home, with engineer Joseph Bachi and architect Hayk Ekshian providing testimony. This layout was criticized by the Board for going 45 percent over the existing lot space rather than 30 percent, prompting 44 North Ashby Ave., LLC to reduce its space to a more reasonable size.For the new plan, Ekshian revealed that they removed four feet from the length of the house, removed its covered porch, and pushed the outside fireplace into the building, allowing them to remove the building coverage variance. Other changes included taking out the second story set of the foyer and altering the roof’s elevation, reducing various room sizes, and taking out a powder room. Bachi also confirmed a reduction in the proposed home’s floor area ratio (FAR), cutting it down from 45 percent to 39.4 percent.Planner Michael Pessolano then shared multiple images of the property from different angles, including the front, back, and the plot of land that will be transferred from Lot 1.01 to Lot 12.01. He then spoke about requiring a habitable floor area ratio variance for 2,466 square feet of floor space, a reduction from the original 2,800 square feet request. Lot area relief was also requested for the two new lot spaces measuring 6,250 square feet each, 50 in width and 125 feet in depth.Additionally, Pessolano discussed 44 North Ashby Ave., LLC’s plan to move the new home to the center of the lot, rather than keep it on the north side. This would produce a “cadence” of home-to-space area while respecting side yard and front yardrequirements, as well as promote the general welfare by adhering to chosen spacing requirements for single-family homes in an R4 district. These benefits, Pessolano concluded, outweighed “any perception of detriment” and ...
