Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves use variance for three‑unit building at West River Sticks Road despite public objections
Summary
The Hopatcong Planning Board approved a use variance and directed site‑plan conditions for Howard Properties’ proposal to replace three rental units with a single three‑unit building in a B‑1 commercial zone following testimony on utilities, parking and access and public opposition citing zoning law.
The Hopatcong Planning Board voted to allow Howard Properties to replace existing rental structures with a single three‑unit residential building at Block 30701, Lot 10, after the developer presented engineering and site plans and the board set conditions for technical compliance.
The board’s decision followed testimony from the applicant’s engineer about utilities and parking. The applicant said the three proposed units would tie into an existing grinder‑pump force main and that the project would provide six on‑site parking spaces (three garages and three drive spaces). The engineer also described a planned extension of a 6‑inch water main that he said would improve fire protection and benefit nearby properties.
Resident James O’Rourke urged denial during public comment, arguing the applicant had not met the statutory burden required to permit multifamily use in the B‑1 district and warning that allowing the project would set an undesirable precedent. “This is a D‑1 use variance request for prohibited use … The burden of proof is substantial under NJSAA 40 55 d 78, and it has not been met by the applicant,” O’Rourke said.
Board members pressed the applicant on parking, drainage easements and whether the proposed changes would increase nonconformities. The board’s planner and engineer requested more detailed site‑plan elements on parking allocation and grading; the applicant agreed to provide calculations for driveway access, utility crossings, and elevations.
After deliberation, a board member made a motion to proceed with approval of the use variance and associated site plan contingent on full satisfaction of the engineering report, clarified parking locations and finalized utility connections. That motion was seconded and carried on recorded vote.
What happens next: The applicant must submit final site‑plan information and satisfy the engineering and utility conditions identified in the board’s review letters before any building permits are issued.
Vote at a glance: The board recorded affirmative votes on the motion to grant the variance and site‑plan direction; the motion passed on a recorded voice vote by sitting members.
Why it matters: The decision permits a change from commercial zoning expectations to residential use at a streetfront location, a type of land‑use change that residents flagged as carrying broader implications for the River Styx redevelopment corridor.
