Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Compliance As Built topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board tables decision on 891 Manhattan Avenue after as-built shows higher impervious coverage
Summary
The Township of Washington Zoning Board of Adjustment tabled application ZB25-13 for 891 Manhattan Avenue after an as-built survey showed impervious coverage above the permitted level and questions about accessory structures and undocumented features.
Get email alerts on the Site Compliance As Built topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Township of Washington Zoning Board of Adjustment on Aug. 19 voted to table application ZB25-13, a post-construction review of a driveway expansion at 891 Manhattan Avenue, after the board received an engineer’s letter and an as-built survey indicating the property exceeds permitted impervious coverage.
Board members said a Boswell Engineering letter and the submitted as-built show 35.9 percent impervious coverage where 35 percent had been the applicable limit for the prior approval. Board members also noted that the township master plan revision now lists the allowable impervious coverage for the zone at 33 percent.
The board identified additional discrepancies on the as-built: an accessory structure listed at 113 square feet where current ordinance language limits one shed to 80 square feet; a flagstone walkway shown on the as-built but not on the originally submitted pool plans; and a “cabana” or accessory structure that does not appear on the submitted plans. Board members said those features could affect the impervious-surface calculation and setback compliance.
Because the condition in the prior resolution requires submission of a certified as-built showing compliance, and the as-built indicates the condition is not met, the board tabled the matter to the next monthly meeting and asked the board attorney and engineer to meet and advise on next steps. The board instructed staff to notify the applicant of required documentation and to coordinate with counsel and the board engineer before the next hearing.
Board members discussed possible remedies, including whether the driveway variance could be handled as part of the existing application or would require a separate application, and whether any overage would be grandfathered based on project start dates. The board did not make a final determination on enforcement or remediation and did not issue any fines or orders at the meeting.

