Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Approvals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waldwick Zoning Board approves multiple residential variances, reminds applicants of 45‑day objection window
Summary
The Waldwick Zoning Board approved a series of homeowner applications — additions, a detached garage, covered porches and decks — after testimony from architects and engineers; the board emphasized that permits may be pulled but the 45‑day post-publication objection period remains in effect and pool fencing/permit requirements must be met.
The Waldwick Zoning Board on an ongoing regular meeting approved a slate of homeowner variance applications for single‑family properties across town, including additions at 61 Evergreen and 42 Schuler, a detached garage at 54 McKay, covered porches on undersized lots, and other property improvements.
Architect Edwin P. Sherman testified for the 61 Evergreen application that the owner seeks a C1 variance to match an existing nonconforming front‑yard setback (the house sits about 26.6 feet from the front lot line in an R1 zone that requires 50 feet). Sherman said the project would add a second‑story master suite above the living‑room footprint but would not change side or rear setbacks or increase lot coverage. Board members asked technical questions about the portico and footprint; no members of the public spoke in opposition and the board approved the application.
In separate hearings the board approved Walt Jamros’s request at 54 McKay for a detached one‑car garage on a corner lot, finding the orientation and proposed 10‑foot setback consistent with neighboring properties; the board questioned driveway dimensions and turning radius but concluded the project would not be detrimental.
Other approvals included requests to square off or add small covered decks and matching rooflines on undersized lots (84 Donald Place and 42 Schuler) and a front porch/curb‑appeal project at 87 Highwood that would raise lot coverage above 40 percent in a narrow, undersized corner lot. In each case the applicants presented plans showing existing nonconformities being matched rather than reduced, and the board found the proposals acceptable.
The board reminded all successful applicants that, although they may apply for building permits immediately, the statutory period during which members of the public may file objections does not begin until the written board resolution is published; the board repeatedly cited a 45‑day running period after publication for filing objections.
On procedural matters the board accepted sworn testimony from licensed professionals when proffered as expert witnesses and reiterated that permit issuance and final code compliance — including fencing and pool barriers where applicable — are addressed in subsequent building‑permit reviews.
The board moved on to old and new business and then adjourned.
