The Township of Washington Zoning Board on Nov. 18 approved an application by Jessica Levesque Rexworth to add about 400 square feet to the rear of her ranch-style home at 637 Valley Court, clearing requested variances for building coverage and impervious coverage subject to conditions.

Attorney Matthew Capizzi, speaking for the applicant, said the property is in the borough’s RA zone and noted the addition is a one-story, 12-foot-deep rear extension intended to preserve the home’s ranch character. Architect Michael Gorrenstein testified that the lot is 10,000 square feet and described the plan as enlarging the kitchen area and primary bedroom, adding a pantry, laundry and a new shower. "The area in red is new construction proposed," Gorrenstein said while walking the board through the plan set.

Gorrenstein and Capizzi asked the board to credit a 2023 condition in which an in-ground pool, pool house and surrounding patio — together roughly 1,800 square feet — had been removed. The team said that, compared with that prior condition, the net increase in impervious coverage from the proposed addition would still be lower than what the site historically supported. Board engineer Jeff Morris confirmed the municipal file contains a 2023 survey that shows the former pool and a more recent survey dated Aug. 12, 2025, that does not.

Neighbor Jason Daniello, who said he lives at 645 Valley Court directly adjacent, told the board he visited the property and that "the pool has been filled and that it's all grassed there," and said he did not expect runoff or visibility impacts from the modest rear addition.

Board members debated the change in impervious coverage and asked the applicant to supply stormwater management and soil‑movement calculations to demonstrate any runoff will be controlled. The board also requested an updated set of plans that: (1) documents the existing nonconforming conditions, (2) confirms the work will not remove more than 50% of the perimeter walls so the matter stays with the zoning board rather than the planning board, and (3) documents that the driveway will not be relocated.

A motion to approve the application carried on a roll-call vote after conditions were added. The board’s approval was contingent on submission of the requested stormwater and soil‑movement calculations, revised plans incorporating the conditions, and formal ratification of the existing nonconforming condition in the resolution.

The board clerk recorded the vote in open session. The applicant was advised that the engineer will review the submitted calculations before a final resolution is issued and that any changes inconsistent with the conditions would require the applicant to return to the board.