Bayonne City Council Deliberates on Zoning Variances for New Housing Development

The Bayonne City Council’s recent meeting focused heavily on zoning variance applications, particularly the proposal for a three-story two-family house on East 11th Street. The project required multiple variances due to the undersized lot, sparking a discussion on the balance between development needs and neighborhood compatibility. Key topics included the proposed building’s impact on sightlines, parking arrangements, and adherence to zoning laws, with council members and experts weighing in on these crucial elements.

02:21The proposal for the new development on East 11th Street, led by J&J Builders LLC, featured a three-story, two-family house designed to fit within the neighborhood’s character. The project necessitated variances due to the lot’s size, including for the number of stories, lot frontage, and lot area. The undersized nature of the 2,500-square-foot parcel prompted the need for these variances, with the architect emphasizing that the building would still comply with other bulk standards and blend aesthetically with the surrounding area.

15:32A critical point of discussion was the front yard setback, primarily due to the stair configuration extending into this area. The architect defended the decision by arguing that removing the stairs would compromise the living space’s functionality. Board members debated the visual impact, considering sightlines along neighboring properties and ensuring that any disruptions would remain behind existing fencing. Additionally, the proposal to move the refuse area beneath the stairs aimed to reduce visibility and access issues.

43:12Parking arrangements also came under scrutiny. The design included two parking spaces compliant with the requirements but slightly below standard dimensions. The discussion focused on the practical usability of the garage and tandem parking system, with assurances that these arrangements were functional without tenant coordination. Despite concerns about the dimensions, the project’s representative asserted the plan allowed tenants to manage two cars effectively. The presence of an existing utility pole requiring relocation for project viability was also highlighted, necessitating approval from the utility company.

35:59Further discussions revolved around the risk of the first-floor unit converting into a third dwelling. Measures to prevent this included omitting an exterior door and using an interior railing. A deed restriction would also be implemented to deter such conversions, addressing the council’s concerns about maintaining the proposed structure’s intended use.

23:59The planner’s report brought additional technical specifications into focus, particularly regarding compliance with permeable surface requirements and discrepancies in roof design renderings. The building’s height, at 34 feet 10 inches, was scrutinized to ensure conformity with new flood regulations, though the site was classified as Zone X.

31:31Driveway alignment and curb cut designs were also examined, with recommendations to adjust layouts to prevent vehicle encroachment on sidewalks. The presence and preservation of existing trees were noted, alongside modifications needed for fencing and lighting to meet compliance standards.

The conversation highlighted how the proposed building, though requiring variances, aligned with the “missing middle housing” concept, providing diverse housing options for varied economic needs within the community. The variances were framed as minimal and necessary to achieve project goals, maintaining open outdoor space in an undersized lot context.

50:59Resolution of the variance application appeared to be forming, with several council members expressing support after clarifications on the bathroom removal and parking arrangements satisfied their concerns. One member remarked on the effort to align the design with neighborhood standards, stating, “I think you’ve done an excellent job in trying to fit what you can fit that is consistent with the neighborhood.” Despite one dissenting vote, the board moved to approve the application, concluding the session with resolutions for previously approved applications and a motion to adjourn.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:

Trending meetings
across the country: