At the end of the Monday, February 26, Township Council meeting, members discussed A-4, a state Assembly bill that recently passed and will affect the town’s fiiture affordable housing plans.
Specifically, A-4 is aplannedoverhaul of the current affordable housing system. It would abolish the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and give its regulatory power to staterun agencies. If towns follow the guidance of the state, they would be immune to the builder’s remedy lawsuits that have threatened towns - including Livingston - during previous affordable housing rounds. Governor Phil Murphy has previously stated his approval of the bill, which will now move to the Senate, under bill S50 Sea (1R).
The specific requirements of the legislation, however, could result in Livingston having to build more housing, even after the Council has spent much of the past few years working to satisfy its current and future housing obligations, at times, to the dismay of residents living nearby proposed developments. The new law states that people would be permitted to challenge a town’s affordable housing plan if they believe it does not meet the requirements set forth in the legislation. Earlier this month, township attorney Jarrid Kantor called the proposed legislation “bad for the town.”
During Monday’s meeting, Council member Shawn Klein, Deputy Mayor Ed Meinhardt, and Mayor A1 Anthony each discussed the bill, noting that Council members have participated in meetings with Livingston’s state Assembly and Senate representatives about the Council’s concerns with affordable housing and how it will be affected by the Assembly bill.
“[The bill] may not be advantageous for this township,” Klein said. “We laid out strong cases for changes we would like to see made. We gave specifics in terms of options that could decrease the counts that the township would be responsible for in overall housing, and there were some receptive comments. We are hoping that some of these discussions will bear fruit and whatever comes down the pipe and gets signed by the governor ends up being a better bill because of the discussions we had.”
Meinhardt said that he was in Trenton on an unrelated matter when Board meeting explaining the need for these variances, the Board also learned that Gangwal did not submit a form required for one proposed setback. Thus, the Board adjourned his hearing in order to give Gangwal time to resubmit the form.
Due to Gangwal’s property being located so close to the corner, the aforementioned setback documentation was not required, as he legally needed two houses on either side to create the front yard setback. Likewise, per testimony by architect Frank Hall, the existing front yard setback is substantially to the balance of other residences in the neighborhood. Interior requests, meanwhile, included increasing the dining room area to 11’ x 20,’ creating new bedroom area on the first floor for his parents; and adding new bedrooms and a bathroom on the second floor. Its exterior, meanwhile, would retain the house’s window arrangement and rooflines but upgrade its outer aesthetic to provide a more farmhouse look.
Additionally, planner Charles Baldanza noted that the property’s lack of square footage mandated the need for a habitable floor ratio variance, while its lack of width compared to other homes mandated the side yard variances. Given the house and lot’s unique circumstances, these expansions would allow Gangwal to alter his home in an aesthetically pleasing manner, allowing for more increased space and reduced risk of stormwater flow, Baldanza said. He also assured the Board that it would provide no detriments to zoning regulations or to the 2018 Livingston Master Plan.
During questioning, Board members Sherri Marrache and Todd Sherman expressed concern that the house plan would encroach onto neighboring properties. Additionally, Hong Yaun questioned how trucks might get into the property’s back area if they need to cut down trees, as well as whether cars can turn into the garage.
Ultimately, a vote was pushed back to March so Gangwal and his architects could work on new design plans.
17 Maplewood Drive
At the Board’s December 12 meeting,Ajith Kumar Bodepudi had requested multiple variances for a second-story addition to his house, including a side yard aggregate, the habitable floor ratio, a rear yard setback, and a side yard setback. However, the Board had criticized his 420 square feet house proposal as too large for 17 Maplewood Drive’s existing size and told him that, to reach an acceptable amount of space, he would need to remove at least one variance.
The new plan, Bodepudi explained, would drastically scale back the square footage of 17 Maplewood Drive’s second floor. He also assured the Board that a habitable floor ratio variance remained essential to the plan, due to the house being on an undersized lot. After Yaun noted that his total space roughly equals 3,664 square feet instead of 3,220, the Board had Bodepudi agree to a qualifier ensuring the habitable floor ratio does not exceed 3,220 feet.
A motion to approve his plan passed.
3 Thurston Drive
Infinity Holdings 7, LLC sought approval to construct a new singlefamily residence at 3 Thurston Drive, requesting a 2.4 percent variance for its habitable floor ratio. Architect Hayk Ekshian provided a breakdown of the single-family home, whose first-floor features would include a dining room, kitchen area, garage, guest bedroom, and powder room. The top floor would consist of four bedrooms, two of which would share a hallway bathroom. Its exterior, meanwhile, would feature details such as wood siding and a stair tower, all of which would improve the landscape and streetscape of the neighborhood.
Engineer Michael Lanzafama also reviewed the history of the existing house, which was constructed in the mid-1960s, and plans to replace it with a new structure. Aside from the habitable floor ratio, Lanzafama claimed it met all R3 zone criteria and assured the Board this home possesses no detriment to the Master Plan and that construction will have a positive investment on the neighborhood. Any disturbances on the site, meanwhile, will eventually be restored with proper landscaping. Additionally, a neighbor whose driveway is connected to 3 Thurston Drive asked Infinity Holdings 7, LLC whether the company would restore her driveway once the demolition process is complete. In response, the Board requested that the applicant include a condition to restore the neighbor’s property post-construction.
A motion to approve the application passed.
44 and 46 North Ashby Avenue 44 N. Ashby Ave., LLC requested to subdivide the parcel between 44 and 46 North Ashby Avenue into two separate lots, designated Lots 1.01 and 12.01. The plan, as explained by engineer Joseph Bachi, would involve altering the two lots so the L-shaped Lot 1 is more rectangular in size. The single-family home on Lot 12 would also be demolished and replaced with a new one, while Lot 1’s home would remain intact.
Hayk Ekshian also described the home that would be built on Lot 12. Its first floor would contain a foyer, dining area, guest bedroom, mudroom, and bathroom, plus a family room, kitchen area, and two-car garage outside. The second floor would include four bedrooms, bathrooms, a walk-in closet, and a laundry room, as well as attic space. However, Board members Edward Bier and Laurie Kahn took issue with the request to go 45 percent over the lot space, when only 30 percent is permitted. In response, Ekshian said he could find a way to reduce space by either shrinking the bedroom sizes or altering attic space.
The Board then adjourned 44 N. Ashby Ave., LLC’s hearing to March 26.
