Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington planning board approves Messina minor subdivision at 44 Pascack Road
Summary
The Township of Washington Planning Board approved a minor subdivision for 44 Pascack Road on Dec. 17, 2025, allowing the one-acre parcel to be split into two single‑family lots subject to county-required right‑of‑way conditions; the board noted two minor variance issues: a 0.26‑foot frontage shortfall and a side‑yard condition.
The Township of Washington Planning Board voted Dec. 17 to approve a minor subdivision for 44 Pascack Road that will divide the existing 1.27‑acre parcel into two single‑family lots, one with the existing house and one vacant conforming lot.
Attorney Gary Zalaric, representing the applicant Charles Messina, told the board the parcel (Block 3501, Lots 18 and 19) is roughly 1.272 acres (50,310 square feet) and that the proposal would create two lots of about 25,000 square feet each. "The newly created lot would be conforming on full rec," Zalaric said in presenting the application.
The subdivision creates two limited zoning issues the board considered. Licensed professional engineer Harry Tuvel testified the plan produces a de minimis frontage shortfall of 99.74 feet where 100 feet is required and a side‑yard condition of about 7.89 feet where 15 feet is required. Tuvel characterized the request as a C(2) flexible or "soft" variance and said the combined side yards exceed the total required width. "The purpose of this subdivision is to establish that this is a valid subdivision," Tuvel said, and he argued the minor shortfall would not have a substantial negative impact.
Board engineer Paul Azzelina reviewed his report and requested routine plan revisions: clearer setback labeling, a zoning table for accessory structures, and a video inspection of the existing sewer if connections cross the proposed lot line so sewers can be relocated wholly onto the lot that will contain the existing dwelling. Azzelina also noted the county may require a 4‑foot dedication along Pascack Road for potential road widening, and the board conditioned approval on any county requirements.
Board members discussed sidewalks (there are none on that side of Pascack Road), tree protections under the town's rules, and whether a future demolition and redevelopment would require a new variance review. Several board members emphasized that the subdivision approval itself does not authorize construction beyond creating the lots and that future building or demolition would come back to the board as required.
The board moved to approve the application subject to county conditions and recorded an affirmative roll call. The application was approved.
The board instructed counsel and the applicant to make the minor plan revisions noted in the engineer's report and to coordinate any county dedication or easement requirements before final filing. The board also confirmed that future development on the conforming lot will require separate site and building approvals.
