Planning board approves renovation at 572 Cypress Street after dispute over township 50% demolition rule

The Township of Washington Planning Board on March 19, 2025 approved an application by homeowner Daniel Jernick to proceed with renovations and additions at 572 Cypress Street after the board reconsidered an earlier denial tied to how the township measures the 50% demolition threshold.

The decision followed extended testimony and debate about whether the architect and contractor counted the basement volume when calculating demolition percentages. Paul Azzolino, the township engineer, told the board the town has historically applied the 50% standard to the first‑floor perimeter wall structure and that his review of the construction drawings indicated about 68% of the first‑floor wall framing was being removed. "You use the code in effect at the time of the application," Azzolino said when explaining which rules apply and why the calculation matters.

The dispute began after Jernick, who lives at and owns 572 Cypress Street, began demolition under a building permit that the applicant said was based on plans filed with the building department and a prior zoning board variance. Architect Joseph Haines of Dasey Haines Architects testified he assumed the lower level could be counted in his calculations and said the work to raise first‑floor ceilings from 8 feet to 9 feet required removing perimeter walls. Jernick said the work began in April 2024 and that he has been out of the house since November 2020; he told the board he planned to return to the home with his family when construction concludes.

Board members first voted to deny the application after a roll call that recorded four nos and three yeses; the record shows the no votes included Mr. Carroll, Mr. Toole, Mr. Wojnaransky and Councilman Coleman, while Mr. Toro, Mr. Pulido and Chairman Sabino initially voted yes. After additional testimony and discussion — including a motion to reconsider — the board revoted and approved the application. The board directed attorney Lou La Bettina to prepare a resolution reflecting the approval; the board said the applicant may begin work at his own risk once the resolution is adopted and appropriate permits are issued at a subsequent meeting.

Board discussion covered multiple related issues: the interpretation and inconsistency of the demolition calculation; whether the building department or the municipal engineer should screen applications first; code changes enacted after the applicant’s zoning approval that altered setback and impervious‑coverage requirements; and site‑specific items such as stormwater measures and retaining‑wall height. Azzolino and other members noted the project includes 2,000‑gallon seepage pits and that soil conditions appear sandy, reducing the immediate drainage concern. He also advised that a video inspection of the building sewer is recommended because parts of the borough sewer system date to more than 50 years ago.

The applicant acknowledged removing two trees and agreed to replant replacements in keeping with board expectations; during the hearing he agreed to plant additional trees and the board asked for written confirmation. Board members also discussed whether penalties or fees should apply when an applicant proceeds past the point that requires planning‑board review; several members urged the town to clarify procedures and to reinstate an engineering screening step so demolition percentages are computed and confirmed before work begins.

The board did not adopt any immediate penalties at the hearing. Directions recorded on the record included: the board attorney will prepare a written resolution of approval, staff and the town administrator will revisit internal procedures for engineering review of demolition percentages, and the board suggested the governing body consider amending the municipal code to define the 50% measurement method more explicitly. The board also noted that other code provisions (including generator screening, setback measurements for porches, and impervious‑coverage limits) changed after the zoning board granted variances and may require further plan adjustments before final permits are issued.

Chairman Sabino closed the application portion of the meeting by confirming the resolution will be drafted for presentation at the board’s next meeting and by advising the applicant to await the resolution and permits. "Application has passed. It's been approved," Sabino said after the revote; the board then asked the attorney to prepare the resolution for the next agenda.

The board’s discussion and vote leave several items to be completed before construction resumes under final permits: the written resolution; any plan clarifications or minor adjustments tied to updated code sections (including setback and impervious coverage); and written confirmation of tree replacement and other site details. The applicant and his architect said they would supply the requested details to staff for the resolution and for the building department’s final permit review.