Land use board approves garage variance at 307 Lakeside despite neighbors’ short‑term rental complaints

The Hopatcong Borough Land Use Board voted to approve a de‑variance and construction plan for a two‑car garage and up to six off‑street parking spaces at 307 Lakeside Boulevard, a nonconforming lakefront lot, following a public hearing and extended debate.

Attorney Daniel McCarthy III, representing applicants Brian Wisdom and Korhana Mihalovic, said the proposal replaces a garage that was destroyed by fallen trees and relocates the new garage fully onto the applicant’s property, setting it back 20 feet from the roadway to improve sight lines. Board engineer testimony described the lot as undersized (8,800 square feet versus a 15,000‑square‑foot requirement), with existing nonconformities including lot width, side yard setbacks and lot coverage. The applicant’s engineer said the proposed work will locate the garage outside the 150‑foot riparian buffer and include erosion‑control measures and an as‑built plan as a condition of approval.

Several neighbors urged the board to deny the variances or condition approval on compliance with the borough’s short‑term rental ordinance. Breeme Teresa Rochelle, a nearby property owner, said the house and an associated boathouse have been rented on Airbnb repeatedly and alleged the property had 190 reviews since 2022, year‑round rentals, overflowing garbage and repeated police calls tied to parking and rowdy guests. Rochelle said the short‑term‑rental ordinance requires a property to be the owner’s principal residence and limits cumulative rental days and on‑site parking; she argued the applicant’s conduct depressed neighborhood property values and put strain on narrow Lakeside Boulevard.

Board counsel and the planning consultant repeatedly cautioned that short‑term‑rental enforcement and licensing fall under a different section of the borough code and are not matters the land use board adjudicates. Planner testimony said the board’s review was limited to the technical variance questions: whether the positive criteria (improved sight lines, removal of a structure from the roadway and added off‑street parking) outweighed the negatives (increased impervious coverage from about 59.8% to about 62.3% and other nonconformities). Engineers recommended additional spot elevations and ridge‑line drawings to show drainage and agreed the applicant must provide elevations and floor plans and an as‑built plan when seeking building permits.

After extended discussion — and an initial recount of votes to ensure only eligible voting members were tallied — the board approved the motion to grant the variances by a roll call final vote of five yes, two no. The board recorded conditions including submission of engineer‑requested spot elevations, silt‑fence erosion controls during construction and an as‑built plan upon completion.

The board’s decision focused narrowly on land‑use and engineering criteria; several board members and the planner reiterated that alleged short‑term‑rental violations are enforcement matters that must be pursued through the borough’s licensing and enforcement process or by the police. The applicant’s counsel said the client had obtained short‑term rental licenses in prior years and that enforcement mechanisms exist in the borough ordinance.

The approval carries standard municipal conditions: plan revisions to address the engineer’s technical comments, compliance with NJDEP permit‑by‑rule requirements where applicable, and required building permits before commencing work.

Next steps: the board’s memorialized resolution will be prepared and the applicant must submit the detailed elevation and as‑built documents required by the board before building permits are issued.