Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Application Carried topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board carries Bendick application for addition at 754 Cocch Peak Avenue after paperwork found incomplete
Summary
The Township of Washington Zoning Board carried an application by Christopher and Kimberly Bendick for additions and alterations at 754 Cocch Peak Avenue because required surveys and plan details were missing or inconsistent; the board asked for as‑built surveys and revised plans before the next meeting.
The Township of Washington Zoning Board on the meeting record carried the application by Christopher and Kimberly Bendick for additions and alterations to 754 Cocch Peak Avenue after board professionals said required paperwork was incomplete.
Board members said the survey recently provided did not depict the current state of the property and that revised plans, height calculations and the original plan submission for the addition were needed before the board could act. Chairman Getz said the application would be carried to the next meeting so the board and its professionals could review complete materials.
Why it matters: the board must be able to verify as‑built conditions and any change in impervious coverage before deciding on variances or approvals, board engineer John Nikkiewicz said during the discussion.
Board members asked the applicant to provide an as‑built survey and the original plan set for the addition. Grace (staff) was asked to follow up with the applicants and to ensure paperwork arrives before the next meeting so the board can consider whether renotice is required. Board members agreed that if additional or different variances are needed (for example changing from one variance category to another), the applicant may need to renotice for a later meeting.
The board did not open a vote on merits of the application. The action taken was procedural: to carry the item to the next meeting pending submission of the as‑built survey, revised plans and calculations.
The board also discussed a related question about whether the applicant changed a planned two‑car garage to a one‑car garage during construction; members noted that precise as‑built documentation was needed to resolve that and other questions.
The board asked staff to confirm with the building department that no permits be issued until the revised plans and required documents are received and reviewed.
The application will return to the board once the applicant submits the requested materials and staff confirms whether any new variances require renoticing.
