At its first meeting of 2025, the Livingston Zoning Board heard Prashant Kumar and Meenakshi Sahay’s application for a first and second-floor addition at 3 Hearthstone Terrace, ultimately asking them to return with a new plan. The Board then listened to three more cases throughout the night, approving two and denying one.
Four appointments were made to the Livingston Zoning Board of Adjustment. Todd Sherman was appointed as a member for a term of four years, ending December 31, 2028; Hong Yuan was appointed for a term of four years and fulfilling the unexpired term ending on December 31,2026; Peter Weisman was appointed as alternate number 1 of the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a term of two years, ending December 31,2026; and Ritu Sohal was appointed as alternate number 2 for two years and fulfilling the unexpired term ending December 31, 2025.
3 Hearthstone Terrace
Kumar and Sahay requested a 1,084 square foot habitable floor area variance and a 5.4 percent habitable floor ratio variance for their home’s first and second-floor additions. Their architect, William Gentile, explained that the home is a 1960s-era splitlevel that no longer fits the lifestyle of its current inhabitants, who need extra room for their children and parents. Some of the proposed changes included adding a curve of stone to the front of the house; adding another bedroom above the garage (Continued on Page A-6) area; raising the living room roof; and remodeling the bathroom to give one second-story room a walk-in closet and bathroom.
Gentile felt these changes worked within the existing house’s square footage limit – despite being below the permitted building height – modernizing it from the interior. This would allow the residence to fit in better with the surrounding neighborhood and, he added, be an improvement over the current house.
The request for a variance of over 1,000 square feet was met with criticism by the Board. Despite noting the challenge of creating massing without violating existing setbacks within the property, Board members felt the requested massing was too large, and the hardship was not sufficiently demonstrated to approve the variance. After conversing, Gentile said the applicants would try to lower the ceiling height to between 14 and 15 feet and present a revised plan at the March 25 Zoning Board meeting.
67 Falcon Road
Nilesh Shah requested three variances, for a left side yard setback, aggregate side yard, and habitable floor ratio, to build a first and second-floor addition at 67 Falcon Road. His architect witness, Afshan Vandal, described the home as a narrow ranch-style house with three very small bedrooms, requiring the applicant to expand its back area to successfully build these additions. The family also planned to raise the garage’s ceiling to bring it up to construction standards, as well as create a bedroom on the first floor so relatives could stay over without having to climb the stairs. The top floor would include four bedrooms plus a laundry room and office, as well as a master suite with two walk-in closets and a double slope roof covering the house.
Two conditions of approval were added to the application: the basement can be finished but not used for habitable space, and the attic will not be accessible by anything other than pulldown stairs.Amotion to approve Shah’s variances passed.
93 Fellswood Drive
Punit and Roshni Dholakia asked for habitable floor area and habitable floor ratio variances to convert the second-floor balcony of their home at 93 Fellswood Drive into a bedroom. According to Punit, he and his family previously resided in Orlando, Florida but started building their home at Fellswood Drive last year to fit a family of four. However, after his parents suffered multiple health-related issues in India, they expressed a desire to come to the United States and be closer to the family, thus requiring the need for extra room by converting the balcony. Punit’s planner, Carl Fletcher, believed the site could accommodate this proposed change since they are not increasing its footprint or total impervious coverage, nor would there be any substantial detriment to the public good or the zoning plan.
These arguments, however, did not persuade the Board members, who expressed concern about the application’s proposed size and whether the balcony area would be a full bedroom or retain additional balcony space.
The Board members felt they “were not given a special reason to grant an exception to the law for these variances,” which Fletcher said was unnecessary since that is required for a D1 variance, but not a D4. By a final tally of 4-3, the applicants failed to get enough votes to approve their request.
74 Hillside Terrace
Rodak Builders LLC requested a nine-foot front yard setback variance and 5.9 percent habitable floor ratio to build a new single-family residence at 74 Hillside Terrace. Due to the lot being 20 percent undersized, this proposed floor ratio will be less than what is permitted within the existing zone, as explained by lawyer Matthew Posada. Planner Nicholas Graviano described the residence as measuring 2,635 square feet, consisting of a basement area (including a mechanical room, small bedroom, and recreational room); a first floor with the garage, open foyer, kitchen, dining room, and family room; and four bedrooms and three bathrooms on the second floor. The applicant will not request any setback relief, as the property meets all setback requirements; provides revised grating and drainage, as well as off-street parking; and offers no detriment to the zoning ordinance. Graviano also felt it advances the Municipal Land Use Law by “promoting general health, safety, morals, and welfare” by replacing the old home with a newer, more updated model.
Following the presentation, Graviano and Posada spoke with a neighbor who expressed concern over the property’s expansion and drainage possibly causing damage to his property. Though Posada explained Rodak Builders LLC must obey whatever drainage recommendations town engineers put on the house, the Board made it a condition that the six-inch open drain will be subject to review. Other conditions included the attic not offering habitable space and the applicant complying with a tree removal ordinance. A motion to approve the application passed.
