Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dock Replacement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board carries dock-replacement proposal after neighbor cites deed restrictions
Summary
A proposed 20x20 waterfront deck (a dock replacement) was carried to Jan. 20 after a neighbor asserted 2011 deed restrictions limiting Lot 7 to accessory-garage use and said the deed and survey showed no dock when the lot was sold. The applicant was asked to produce historical surveys and clearer cribbing photos.
The Hopatcong Land Use Board deferred action on a dock-replacement application after a neighbor told the board she believed deed restrictions prohibited a new dock and survey records filed with the 2011 deed did not show a dock.
What happened: Counsel for the applicant described a plan to replace a fallen dock with a primarily onshore 20-by-20 deck that would serve as a water's-edge recreation area rather than a projecting dock. The applicant said cribbing from a prior structure remains in the cove and that New Jersey Department of Environmental approvals exist for the proposed work. Neighbor Constance Madden objected, presented a deed packet and argued the deed restricts Lot 7 to "be used only as an accessory garage for 16 Oakdale Avenue," and said the 2011 survey included on the deed did not show a dock at that time.
Madden: "[The] lot shall be used only as an accessory garage for 16 Oakdale Avenue," she told the board, urging the board to review the deed restrictions and recorded exhibits before approving any shoreline structure.
Applicant response and board action: Applicant counsel said they believe replacement of a prior dock would not violate the deed restriction and said cribbing is visible; the board asked the applicant to bring clearer historic surveys or photographs and other proof of a preexisting dock. The board carried the matter without further notice to allow the applicant to produce the requested evidence; a return date of Jan. 20 was discussed.
Why it matters: The dispute raises a common land-use question: whether the rights associated with a prior nonconforming structure survive after the structure has deteriorated or been removed, and whether deed-restriction language limits permitted accessory uses of a lot. The board requested documentary proof of an earlier dock (old surveys, photographs, or additional witness testimony) before deciding.
Next steps: The applicant will gather survey evidence and photos of cribbing and return on the scheduled date; the board asked staff to review past resolutions and recorded exhibits to clarify the deed history.
