Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Encroachment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Homeowner seeks revocable license after wall encroaches on Colts Neck right‑of‑way

Colts Neck Township Committee · December 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A new resident who built a retaining wall that encroaches several inches onto township right‑of‑way asked the committee for a revocable license; the committee directed staff to prepare a license rather than record an easement, with removal at the homeowner’s cost if needed.

At a Dec. 10 meeting, a representative for a homeowner at 97 Cedar Drive asked the Colts Neck Township Committee to allow a revocable license after a retaining wall built by the homeowner encroached onto township right‑of‑way by about 5–10 inches along roughly 50 feet of frontage.

Mr. Shane Marco, representing the property owner, said the owner reduced the height to four feet after zoning review and had notified utility companies. Town professionals reviewed a survey and advised that the road could still be widened if required. The committee and Attorney Bennett discussed the difference between recording an easement and issuing a revocable license; members said a license gives the township greater flexibility to require removal later.

Committee members expressed sympathy for the homeowner’s safety concerns (the wall was installed after a vehicle incident on the lawn) and agreed to pursue a license agreement rather than a permanent easement. The agreement will be drafted by the township with a clause requiring the homeowner to remove the wall at their expense if the township later needs the space for roadwork or other public purposes.

What happens next: staff will draft a revocable license agreement reflecting the committee’s direction. The town said it will include standard protections and a removal clause; no final recorded easement was approved at the meeting.