The Livingston Zoning Board, at its December 12 meeting, temporarily adjourned Gary and Darice Tufaro’s application to construct a two-car garage at 89 East McClellan Avenue until February, 2024. The Board also heard four more applications, approving two and pushing back the others to later dates in the new year.
Additionally, prior to its public meeting, the Board memorialized resolutions honoring Jim Hochberg and Tony Nardone for their contributions to the township, as both men will resign from the Board at the end of the year.
89 East McClellan Avenue
The Board initially heard from the Tufaros on September f 2 before agreeing to continue their hearing on November 28. However, due to a lack of Board members in attendance, the Tufaros could not acquire the necessary affirmative votes, prompting the Board to reschedule the hearing. Per the couple’s statements, the new garage’s height would be lowered by two feet, bringing it to 18 feet. These changes, Gary Tufaro claimed, would allow them to put storage on the side while retaining the garage’s length, width and pointed roof design.
While the Board members said they appreciated the Tufaros’changes, they remained divided over its extended height. Members Michael Affrunti and Laurie Kahn both felt the design was “passable” and appreciated its reduced density; Tony Nardone and Lauren Tabak Fass, meanwhile, emphasized Livingston’s strict rules for garage height and how this proposal continues to exceed 13 feet despite the new alterations. The Board suggested the Tufaros consult their architect on ways to reduce its height so the roof conforms to the ordinance better.
After recommending the Tufaros consult the Livingston Zoning Office on this matter, their hearing was adjourned until February 27, 2024, with no further notice required.
13 Spalding Drive
Mihir Shroff sought approval to construct a new single family residence at 13 Spalding Drive, requesting variances for front yard, right side yard and front/side corner yard setbacks as well as 4.19 percent habitable floor ratio variance. Shroff, who bought the property in July, assured the Board that his requests would be consistent with the size and dimensions of existing nearby homes. He also pointed out that his variances remain in line with a variance that had been approved by the Board in January 2022, but had expired earlier this year.
After confirming with the Board that his house design is similar to the one approved in 2022 – and agreeing on a condition to remove an existing shed on the property – the Board approved Shroff’s request.
5 Dorothy Avenue
Mihir Gupta sought approval to build a deck at 5 Dorothy Avenue, asking the Board to grant him a 13 foot rear yard setback variance. Having moved to Livingston with his wife six years ago, Gupta stated that their house’s patio is too small for them and their children to use as outdoor space. This deck, he believed, would solve this problem while making good use of the house’s additional space.
Additionally, Gupta noted that half of his backyard is pressed against his neighbor’s backyard, while the other is next to a collection of trees accompanying a waterworks department. Half of the deck, he added, would be aligned with the neighbors’ side and half would rest against the other side. He then elaborated upon the deck’s building process with the Board, stating he intends to use as much width as possible so its steps reach the patio. The 20 by 20 foot deck would be three feet tall, with a fence railing 38 inches long.
Amotion to approve Gupta’s deck application passed.
17 Maplewood Drive
Ajith Kumar Bodepudi sought approval for a second story addition in the rear of 17 Maplewood Drive. This application required multiple variances involving the property’s side yard aggregate, rear yard setback and side yard setbacks, as well as a 14.3 percent habitable floor ratio variance and a habitable floor area variance of 452 square feet.
As Bodepudi and his architect witness, Po Yi Wu, explained, when he bought the undersized lot property, there was originally no basement. During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, he and his spouse realized the benefits of including one. They also felt a new back addition would prove an asset to their current home office space. He also stated this addition will not affect any neighbor’s view of the property and remained in line with existing setbacks.
Wu then presented a site plan detailing the recommended second story, which would measure 420 square feet. To create additional room, the applicant would convert some of the living room into office space for Bodepudi; the second floor would include four bedrooms and a study for his wife, although they said the house would retain its existing style.
The couple had also spoken with a neighbor who resided next door at 19 Maplewood Drive and was curious about Bodepudi building a window opposite his home.
However, based on the request for habitable floor area and habitable floor ratio, Nardone felt that the house proposal was too big for Bodepudi’s lot size. To fix this, he said, they would need to decrease some square footage to get rid of at least one variance, a sentiment shared by other Board members.
The Board adjourned the hearing until February 27, 2024 so Bodepudi and Wu could revise their existing plan.
201 North Livingston Avenue
Rodney Brown asked the Board to approve a five foot chain link fence at 201 North Livingston Avenue, which required a one foot variance. As Brown and his wife, Symone, explained, they began renovations on their house in 2022 but, prior to that, two neighboring trees fell on their fence. The fence had been in place when they had originally purchased the house – pre-dating Livingston’s fence ordinance – so they decided to replace it and hired a fence company to install the new fence. However, the company never obtained a permit to fix it, resulting in the Browns receiving a door tag warning. They attempted to reach a compromise with the Town Hall by applying for a permit before trying for a variance – which was recently denied as well – prompting them to seek the Board’s help.
Another problem, the Board noted, was how this fence encroached onto a right-of-way.
Due to this placement, the Board members were legally unable to approve the Browns’ fence variance, though they recognized the couple’s unique position and praised them for taking initiative. It was suggested that the couple focus on talking to their fence company and doing research in order to figure out what they want to do with the fence next. The Board then adjourned their hearing to April 23, 2024.
