Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Reaffirmation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board reaffirms minor subdivision, use variance for Jack Novak after filing deadline lapse
Summary
The Sayreville Zoning Board of Adjustment on Sept. 24 reaffirmed its January approval of a minor subdivision and use variance for property tied to Jack Novak so the applicant can complete map filing after missing a statutory deadline.
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Reaffirmation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Sayreville Zoning Board of Adjustment voted Sept. 24 to reaffirm a prior approval of a minor subdivision and use variance for property associated with Jack Novak, allowing the applicant to perfect the subdivision after missing a filing deadline. The board adopted a resolution saying the approvals originally granted Jan. 22, 2025, and memorialized Feb. 26, 2025, remain in effect.
John Wisniewski, of Wisniewski and Associates, told the board his client had missed the map‑filing deadline “only by about a week” and asked the board to reaffirm the board’s earlier grant so the subdivision could be perfected. “But the law is the law,” Wisniewski said.
The resolution read at the meeting recited that Jack Novak had applied for a minor subdivision and use variance to subdivide a portion of Lot 102 on Sayreville Boulevard South and combine it with Lot 21 on Hillside Avenue, which contains a preexisting nonconforming single‑family and two‑family dwelling. The resolution states the original approvals were granted after a public hearing on Jan. 22 and memorialized by resolution on Feb. 26; it further notes the statutory period to effect the subdivision had expired and the applicant asked for reapproval.
A board member moved to adopt the reaffirmation resolution and a second was recorded; the board then took a roll call vote and the motion passed. The board chair announced the resolution had been adopted.
The action simply reaffirms the board’s prior approval; no new changes to the approved plans were proposed at the hearing and no conditions beyond those in the original resolution were stated.
The board’s notice of the meeting was read into the record, noting compliance with Chapter 231, P.L. 1975, by advertising and posting and filing with the borough clerk.
The board did not solicit public comment on the item during the Sept. 24 hearing.

