Proposed Zoning Changes Could Redefine Home Sizes in Glen Rock

At the request of the Glen Rock Mayor and Council, the Planning Board convened a special work session on September 2, 2025, to consider alternate methods of regulating the mass and scale of residential development in the borough’s A1 and A2 zones. The meeting was dedicated to a single agenda item and began with a 20-minute presentation from planning consultant Fred Heyer of Heyer, Gruel, and Associates.

Heyer opened his presentation by explaining that Glen Rock is not unique in facing concerns about the size and scale of new homes. Across New Jersey, desirable communities with established character and smaller lot sizes are experiencing pressure for larger development. He noted that homes built in earlier decades typically averaged 1,100 to 1,200 square feet, while today homes under 2,500 square feet are uncommon. While modernization is expected, he said, there comes a point where the size of new construction creates conflicts with neighbors and alters the overall community environment.

To manage these pressures, Glen Rock currently uses the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard. Heyer described FAR as a planning tool more suitable for skyscrapers and large commercial buildings than for single-family homes. He said that applying FAR in this context is “like duck hunting with a bazooka.” Homes can appear visually massive without technically exceeding their FAR limits, particularly when architectural features such as double-height entryways or vaulted ceilings add volume without adding floor area.

Heyer reviewed aspects of Glen Rock’s current ordinance that he described as strong, including proportional side yard setbacks, a 32-foot height cap, and maximum house sizes of 5,500 square feet in A1 and 4,400 square feet in A2. He also noted the borough’s use of lot depth caps, 175 feet in A1 and 140 feet in A2, as an effective tool. However, he said the existing regulations do not sufficiently address building volume, which directly impacts neighborhood scale.

As an alternative, Heyer recommended shifting from FAR to a building coverage standard, focusing on the footprint of homes. His preliminary proposal included reducing principal building coverage from 25 percent to 16 percent in A1 and from 25 percent to 20 percent in A2. According to his analysis, these changes could reduce potential building volume by approximately 32 percent and 19 percent, while still allowing the maximum square footage permitted under current rules. He also recommended measuring building height from pre-construction grade to prevent manipulation of elevation, setting a 50-foot maximum front yard setback to maintain consistent streetscapes, and eliminating minimum floor area requirements. Accessory structures, such as garages or cabanas, would be limited separately to 4 percent coverage.

Heyer said this approach would be simpler to administer and enforce, since zoning officers could review compliance using a plan view of the home. He also noted that under New Jersey law, FAR violations often trigger use variances, which carry a higher legal burden of proof, while building coverage issues are classified as bulk variances and are easier to evaluate.

Following the presentation, the Planning Board spent nearly two hours reviewing Heyer’s recommendations in detail, asking questions about how the proposed changes would translate into a new ordinance and how they would affect development in practice. Board members examined comparisons of potential building sizes under current rules compared with the proposed standards.

During the public portion, several residents spoke. Among them was architect Scott Bella (Rock Road resident), who said he had initially been concerned about rumors regarding how the new standard would be calculated. After hearing the presentation, he said he felt reassured and emphasized that in his view, the new approach does not significantly change the volume of what is permitted today. Bello explained that while the calculation method would change, the end result is essentially the same in terms of allowable bulk. He described the building coverage model as a clearer, easier way of regulating size than FAR, which he called prone to gray areas and open to manipulation. He also said the proposed 4 percent allowance for accessory structures was a positive adjustment, since it would prevent smaller additions like sheds or pergolas from triggering immediate variance requests. Based on his 30 years of architectural practice, Bello concluded that the new system was more straightforward and that many of the frustrations residents feel are the result of isolated violations rather than the ordinance itself.

The Planning Board’s subcommittee will continue to review the recommendations in the coming weeks. A refined proposal is expected at a future meeting in October. Any eventual ordinance changes would require approval by the Mayor and Council and would be subject to a 35-day statutory review by the Planning Board.