Push to Rein In Glen Rock Homes Hits Major Objection

The Glen Rock Planning Board continued its high stakes discussion on reforming the borough’s Effective Gross Floor Area (EGFAR) ordinance on October 6, 2025, focusing on the board subcommittee’s preliminary recommendation to replace EGFAR with a Maximum Principal Building Coverage standard. The proposal has drawn pointed critique from local architects who warned of unintended consequences if the change is carried out in its current form.

The Town Council had tasked the Planning Board with reexamining bulk regulations in the A1 and A2 residential districts, citing that the existing EGFAR approach “opened the door to interpretation and failed to adequately address the problems … intended to solve,” often allowing “oversized development” out of sync with the Master Plan. To remedy this, the subcommittee’s preliminary proposal calls for eliminating EGFAR and instead regulating principal building footprint (coverage), with stricter caps: in A1 zones, reducing coverage from 25 percent to 14 percent (with a cap of 2,750 sq ft); in A2 zones, from 25 percent to 18 percent (cap of 2,200 sq ft). The draft also includes a 2 percent bonus allowance for open roofed structures (porches, pergolas, trellises, etc.), mandates that building height be measured from pre-construction grade, and introduces a maximum front yard setback of 50 feet to preserve streetscape consistency.

At the meeting, architect Xiomara Paredes and project manager Jeffrey Gasnik of Paredes-Grube Architecture delivered testimony cautioning against wholesale elimination of EGFAR. Their central argument: regulating only footprint (coverage) would encourage maximizing upper floors and attic space, creating what they described as “bulky box, two and a half story” structures. This, they argued, was the very problem the borough sought to avoid. Gasnik presented comparative 3D modeling, noting that under the proposed 20 percent coverage scenario (before the board’s shift toward 18 percent), a sample home could grow by 21.71 percent in volume (roughly 800 sq ft more livable area) over a typical EGFAR-maximized home under current rules. Even at 18 percent, their model still projected a 10 percent volume increase.

Paredes and Gasnik argued that EGFAR’s built-in scaling factor is a strength. As lot size increases, allowed density proportionally declines, which prevents overbuilding on large lots and protects neighborhood scale. The coverage-only approach lacks that proportional tempering. Instead of discarding EGFAR, they urged refinements: exclude open porches (non-conditioned), count attics (finished or unfinished) with ceiling heights of 7 ft or more, and count double-height spaces twice. They also flagged that accessory structures (pools, garages) are inconsistently treated and that design flexibility (for first floor space, aging in place, or family needs) could be constrained under smaller footprints.

Public comment reflected deep concern, especially from homeowners on narrow or older lots. A resident of 89 Glen Avenue shared that a modest single-story extension to accommodate her aging parents would already require a 7 percent bulk variance under the proposed 18 percent coverage model, an unusually high threshold for approval. Others warned that modeling on 80 ft lots unfairly skews outcomes. Many Glen Rock lots are 60 ft wide, making the jump to stricter coverage caps much more punishing. One builder urged maintaining a 20 percent base or providing separate rules for lots under 8,500 sq ft to avoid forcing routine renovations into variance territory.

At the close of the session, the Planning Board declined to vote on the subcommittee resolution, agreeing that “more work” is needed. The subcommittee will reconvene, with particular focus on how the proposed changes would affect small and narrow lots (50 to 60 ft wide), and return with revised options.