The Township of Washington Zoning Board on Sept. 16, 2025 memorialized a resolution approving a driveway‑width variance for 891 Manhattan Avenue but left unresolved an apparent impervious‑surface problem that the board asked the zoning officer to investigate.

The applicant, Brian Collins, had provided an as‑built survey dated July 28 showing an impervious coverage figure the board described as about 35.9 percent—above the prior 35 percent threshold and above a new 33 percent limit set in an ordinance adopted Sept. 23, 2024. Board counsel and staff told members that the new ordinance applies only to new applications after its adoption and recommended that the board memorialize only the narrow driveway‑width approval while the zoning officer reviews whether any excess coverage resulted from work performed after the new rule took effect.

Board discussion focused on chronology and enforcement. Staff reported the driveway‑widening violation was flagged on Sept. 12, 2024, and board members reviewed the building‑department timeline to determine whether the work that increased impervious area occurred before or after the ordinance’s effective date. The board’s engineer and attorney said that if the excess impervious area was built before Sept. 23, 2024 the property would be measured under the rules that were in force at that time; if the increase occurred after the new ordinance, the zoning officer may refer the matter back to the board for additional relief or enforcement.

The board removed language from the memorialized resolution that had implied the applicant was fully compliant with all zoning criteria; the finalized resolution limited the board’s action to driveway width and acknowledged that the zoning officer should investigate and report on impervious coverage and on uncovered structures such as a second shed identified in an as‑built review. The board’s engineer said he would include any findings in a letter to staff; the attorney said he would circulate the revised memorializing language.

On roll call, the board approved the resolution with one negative vote recorded; the zoning officer’s forthcoming investigation could prompt additional board action depending on its findings.