Development News for Clifton, New Jersey

Zoning Board Approves Minor Porch Extension for 20 Malcolm Court

The Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a variance request for a residential property at 20 Malcolm Court to extend an existing porch. The proposed extension, measuring approximately four feet by 15 feet, would bring the front yard variance out to under 35 feet, exceeding the existing setback by about a foot and a half. The board found the request to be minimal and aesthetically pleasing, with Commissioner Foucault noting it would look nice. The approval was granted with a motion by Commissioner Foucault, seconded by Commissioner O'Connor.

Zoning Board Approves Rear Dormer Addition for 34 Hugo Street Property

The Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a zoning variance for 34 Hugo Street to add a partial dormer to the rear of the house. The project aims to create an additional full bathroom and bedroom upstairs to accommodate a growing family. The addition extends a non-conforming 5.1-foot side yard setback (6 feet required) by a small margin, and also involves minor repairs and widening of the front porch steps. The board approved the application, noting that the addition is hidden from the front facade and does not exacerbate existing non-conforming conditions significantly. A discussion about potential future ordinance changes that might allow such non-conformities as-of-right was mentioned.

Zoning Board Approves Variances for New Commercial Tenant at 279 Crooks Avenue

The Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a resolution for bulk and use variance for a new commercial tenant, Honey Grew Coffee LLC, at 279 Crooks Avenue. The motion to approve was made by Commissioner O'Connor and seconded by Vice Chair Molner.

Zoning Board Denies Variance Request for 246 Sillick Street Property

The Zoning Board of Adjustment denied an application for a residential property at 246 Sillick Street. The applicant sought variances for lot coverage, side yard setback, rear yard setback, and building height to construct a larger home, including an in-law suite. The board cited concerns about the impact on neighbors, retaining walls, and the overall suitability of the lot shape for the proposed construction. Despite the applicant's efforts to reduce the home's size and footprint over several iterations, the motion to deny passed with six votes in favor and one against.