Planning board approves retroactive demolition permit for 663 Burke Street with conditions

The Township of Washington Planning Board on July 2 approved an application by 663 Burke Street LLC to permit demolition and the construction of a new two‑and‑a‑half‑story residence at 663 Burke Street, granting a retroactive demolition permit with conditions.

The approval followed testimony from the applicant’s attorney, Charles Sarlo, and the project’s licensed architect, who described a previously single‑story ranch that was partially taken down during renovation after on‑site rot was discovered. The board’s consulting engineer, Paul Anselina, identified outstanding technical items the applicant must address and recommended conditions for resolution compliance.

The application matters because the work exceeded the township’s threshold for “total destruction” as interpreted under local land‑use rules, triggering a demolition permit and stormwater review that the applicant did not secure before some demolition work began. Under questioning, Sarlo said the applicant purchased the house intending repairs and a second‑floor addition; as the contractor found rot, demolition progressed beyond initial expectations.

Architect testimony and submitted plans The project architect, a licensed architect and professional planner in New Jersey (licensed 02/2008; in private practice since 02/2012), described the property as a 109‑by‑200‑foot lot (21,799 square feet) and presented drawings showing a two‑story addition with a proposed building height of 29.27 feet, building coverage of about 13.54 percent and a 22‑foot driveway aligned with a new front‑facing two‑car garage. Proposed interior increases included roughly 1,268 square feet of new second‑floor space and about 2,177 total first‑floor area after alterations.

Engineer review, stormwater and utilities Board engineer Paul Anselina reviewed a June 30, 2025 letter and told the board the applicant must comply with several technical conditions before resolution compliance. He noted the property is relatively level but flagged an undefined existing inlet on the plans that warrants further investigation (camera inspection of the pipe was suggested). He also said the project will require updated plans to comply with current building‑code standards for new construction when the application is processed through the building department.

Anselina and the architect clarified that no trees would be removed and that proposed stormwater controls would keep runoff on site. The architect stated the existing stormwater patterns will be retained and that the addition will trigger a stormwater seepage/mitigation design per the engineer’s review.

Demolition permitting and testing Board members asked whether standard demolition requirements — asbestos and lead testing and disconnection of utilities — had been met. Sarlo said his client texted that “the utilities were disconnected and, quote, ‘anything required by town was done for the demo permit.’” The board agreed it would make confirmation of required demolition permits and disconnections a condition of the resolution.

Driveway, sewer ejector and other clarifications The applicant described relocating and narrowing the driveway to a 22‑foot curb cut; the engineer asked the plans be revised to clearly delineate impervious limits. The architect confirmed an existing ejector/grinder pump would discharge under pressure to existing cast‑iron piping and said the reuse should be acceptable; the board asked that utility and service up‑sizing be checked by the applicant’s plumber and electrician and noted that any work in the public right‑of‑way would require a road‑opening permit.

Conditions, submissions and certification During deliberation the applicant stipulated to comply with Anselina’s review letter, to revise drawings to meet current building‑department requirements, and to provide as‑built verification for ridge elevation prior to placing roofing materials. The board also asked that revised plans be submitted electronically for engineering review; the engineer indicated the resolution‑compliance process would rely on his written report to the construction official rather than returning the application to the planning board.

Vote and next steps A motion to approve the application, subject to conditions noted in the board engineer’s review and to confirmation that demolition permits and required testing/utilities work were completed, passed unanimously on roll call (Mister Carroll; Mister Murphy; Mister Pulido; Mister Toole; Mister Wojnaransky; Councilman Ullman; Mayor Kalamari — all “yes”). The board directed the applicant to submit revised drawings and documentation for resolution compliance; the engineer will review and report to the construction official.

The board also requested that the building department consider proactive education for applicants about demolition thresholds and permitting after this and other recent partial‑to‑full demolition cases were discussed.