Delmar Avenue Home Built Too Big

At its July 10, 2025 meeting, the Glen Rock Zoning Board took up a variance application for a newly built single-family home at 163 Delmar Avenue (Block 228, Lot 21), after officials discovered the completed house exceeded the allowable Effective Gross Floor Area Ratio (EGFAR).

Background
The issue stemmed from an error in the original architectural plans. The EGFAR was miscalculated and inadvertently approved during permitting. The house was built to those dimensions and is now “100 percent complete.” The discrepancy came to light only when the builder applied for the Certificate of Occupancy, halting the sale to Sharon and Arnold Lackin.

Variance Request Details

• The home’s gross floor area exceeds permitted levels by 487.25 square feet. The proposed EGFAR is 4,031 square feet versus the allowed 3,543.75 square feet, which is about a 13 to 15 percent overage.
• Architect Scott Bella verified the structure matches the plans but confirmed the EGFAR figures were wrong. All other dimensional aspects, including yard setbacks, height, volume, footprint, and lot coverage, are in compliance.
• Planner John McDonough presented a C2 variance case, citing a qualitative balancing test. He noted this is a very unique situation because the house was unknowingly built with no intent to sidestep zoning rules.

Arguments from the Applicant

• The home integrates well with the neighborhood, does not overwhelm neighboring homes, and is aesthetically pleasing.
• Since dimensional controls already limit visible scale (setbacks, coverage, height), the EGFAR overage does not necessarily mean the home looks larger externally.
• As the house is complete, denying the variance would leave space inside unused, which the applicant argued is inefficient. So for example, the builder would have to convert a 500 square foot bedroom into storage/attic space.

Neighbor Concerns

• Privacy: Residents at 136 Hillman Avenue and at 155 Delmar Avenue described the house as towering and imposing, with windows facing their yards and prior vegetation removed, which compromised privacy.
• Precedent: They feared that approval would signal builders can overbuild and seek forgiveness later.
• Scale: The 15 percent overage seems excessive given the 10,000 square foot lot and surrounding smaller homes.
• Builder Conduct: Complaints included removal of mature tree roots and a refusal to plant requested green giants early on.
• Public Notice: Concerns were voiced over a broad request for other variances, waivers, and exceptions. The applicant’s attorney clarified that this language is a standard legal precaution to avoid the need for a new notice.

Proposed Landscaping Condition
To ease neighbor concerns, the applicant proposed a landscaping buffer:

• Arnold Lackin expressed willingness to work with the builder to install a landscaping plan approved by neighbors.
• McDonough suggested 8 to 10 foot plantings such as Arborvitae, spaced six feet on center, within a four foot planting band inside the lot line to create a continuous green screening.
• The builder may be prepared to cover the related costs, per Mr.Lackin.

Board Deliberations and Decision
Board members noted they must evaluate the case as though the house had not yet been constructed. They acknowledged that EGFAR errors can occur with modern CAD systems. The board faced the challenge of balancing zoning integrity with the practical reality of an already completed home. Several members expressed concern over setting a precedent.

The application was ultimately denied by a vote of 4 to 3. Those voting in favor noted they supported the application so neighbors could benefit from the proposed landscaping since the structure is not likely to change. However, the majority found the variance request unjustified and opted to uphold zoning rules.

Next Steps
The final outcome leaves the home without a Certificate of Occupancy. It remains to be seen whether further applications, appeals, or modifications will follow.