Safety Concerns Raised for Building on Steep Land

The Bridgewater Township Zoning Board of Adjustment unanimously passed last week a heavily-debated application to approve the construction of a single-family residence on a 2.2-acre plot of land at 78 Hillcrest Road—despite concerns that the land is too steep to accommodate a structure.

The hearing, which was continued from the board’s Nov. 15 meeting, featured site plan modifications and variance requests from South Branch Investment Co., as the firm continued its attempt to have the application passed.

“We heard a number of suggestions from board members and your professional staff to make the application a better application,” said Jeff Lehrer, the attorney representing the company at the start of the hearing.

The variances, all of which were granted by the zoning board, include front yard setback, coverage and steep slope variances to accommodate building on a site with unique topographical features and to comply with the Hillside Development Act. Additionally, South Branch Investment Company requested, and was granted, a variance to increase the maximum floor to area ratio of the project from 0.27 to 0.29.

One item of controversy for nearby residents was whether or not the property, which features a slope steeper than a 30 percent grade, could properly sustain the construction of a house while keeping in mind the safety of the people on and around the property. Concerns such as water runoff and the safety of parking construction vehicles on such a steep slope, which have been hot topics during previous failed applications for this same site, were addressed.

“The more I hear about this lot and the more times I’m here, the more I think that it shouldn’t be built upon,” said resident Jeff Hinkle.

The board, on the other hand, seemed more than satisfied that all of its requested modifications to the applicant had been met—chief among them, a reduced driveway width from 12 to 10 feet, a two-foot elevation of the garage-level floor and the shifting of a drywell further downhill from the property line to prevent overflow drainage. The owners of the property will also have to maintain these drywells after moving in.

Several zoning board members expressed their satisfaction with the modified application and its attempted compliance with various requirements.

“In terms of trying to minimize disturbance, the footprint of the proposed home and working with the recommendations of the board, I think the applicant has put together a good plan that does, in fact, promote the ideas, intents and purposes of the Hillside Development laws,” said board member Donald Sweeney.

Another place where the board agreed is that although the terrain of the property makes any construction project difficult, this is the best possible use for the land.

“Where the steep slope was addressed, the construction of this house does fit the slope,” said zoning board member Jim Scott.

Board member Filipe Pedroso added his approval.

“I’m satisfied that the proposal certainly is the least intrusive option to build something on this land," he said. "I can’t visualize a small house, and I wouldn’t be satisfied with a bigger house. The only other option would be to say, ‘you can’t build on this land.’”