Hopatcong board approves variances for Lakeside Boulevard property; owner agrees to end boathouse residential use

The Hopatcong Land Use Board on a recorded vote approved variance relief for 303 Lakeside Boulevard (Block 30501, Lot 2), permitting a proposed three-bedroom home and a two-car garage at the lakefront property while the applicant agreed to stop using an existing boathouse as a residence.

The applicant’s attorney, Daniel Banks, told the board the boathouse has been present since at least the 1950s and that the client intends to limit the boathouse to nonresidential, accessory uses: “I believe we’ve established proof that the boathouse has existed since prior to institution of the ordinances prohibiting the boathouse,” Banks said. The applicant, Mike Paxos, confirmed under oath that he will cease residential use of the boathouse and would return to the board if he later sought overnight occupancy.

The board’s approval covers multiple bulk and coverage variances needed because the lot is undersized and pie-shaped. Engineer Donna Bullock described the site and the proposed changes, noting constraints from steep slopes, underlying bedrock and the property’s shape. Bullock said the lot measures 14,400 square feet where 15,000 is required and listed the key variances the board considered: a front-yard setback request (26 feet proposed where 46 feet was referenced as required in initial testimony), a 7-foot side-yard setback where 10 feet is required, a building footprint slightly above the 20% footprint standard, and proposed impervious coverage above the borough standard (Bullock gave a working figure of 42% compared with a 35% limit but said the project team reduced the calculated impervious area by proposing pervious grid pavers for the parking area).

Architect and planner Kenneth Fox described the house layout and said securing an off-street driveway and garage was a primary motivator for the design. Bullock and Fox both outlined engineering responses the applicant will provide: final stormwater mitigation details, retaining-wall structural calculations, and updated landscaping plans tied to the board’s review. Bullock told the board the project team expects to use precast dry wells or similar measures where feasible, but said bedrock and slope limit some infiltration options.

Board members pressed for specifics on stormwater and on how the boathouse would be used going forward. Banks said the owner will not impose a deed restriction but affirmed the owner’s commitment that the boathouse “will no longer be used as a residence.” The applicant also agreed to submit final architectural plans for the boathouse and the new dwelling for professional review and for those final plans to be reflected in the resolution and as-built requirements.

On the board’s recorded roll call, the vote to approve the application was unanimous as recorded: Mister Sureless (yes); Mister Dimon (yes); Mister Kenimer (yes); Miss Crock (yes); Councilman Kuzovich (yes); Miss Snow (yes); Mister Taylor (yes); Mayor Galati (yes); Chairman Wright (yes).

The board’s approvals were accompanied by conditions discussed on the record: (1) the boathouse shall not be used for overnight occupancy and the applicant must return to the board if that use is sought in the future; (2) the applicant must supply final architectural drawings and structural calculations (including retaining-wall details and underdrain designs) for professional sign-off and to be incorporated into the resolution; and (3) the project must show feasible stormwater mitigation measures (dry wells, pavers, rain barrels or equivalent) consistent with soil and bedrock constraints and Borough ordinance requirements. Bullock said the application will be carried into the resolution so final numbers and details will be settled there.

The board’s public materials on record included historical aerial photos the applicant submitted showing the boathouse on the property in 1956; the applicant said those images and local recollection support the assertion that the boathouse pre-dates current ordinance limits. Board professionals agreed the application is a C-variance matter and that the board must determine whether testimony supports the single-residence configuration now proposed.

The board’s action resolves the pending continued application that was first heard on Jan. 14, 2025; the applicant will file the final, stamped plans and any required permits before construction proceeds.