Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Dock topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hopatcong board approves variance for Michael Gruber’s dock after deed-restriction dispute
Summary
After a heated exchange over restrictive covenants, the Hopatcong Land Use Board approved Michael Gruber’s variance to construct a 20-by-20 dock at 16 Oakdale Ave, concluding the deed’s November 24 opinion letter and DEP permit supported allowing a dock. Vote: 5–1.
The Hopatcong Borough Land Use Board voted to approve a variance allowing a 20-by-20 dock at 16 Oakdale Ave, moving a contested lakeshore design forward after debate over deed restrictions.
The application resumed as a continued matter; applicant counsel Burton Heffler told the board the proposed dock would sit largely on land and is smaller than alternatives, arguing the design reduces intrusion into the narrow cove. Neighbor counsel Mark Brancato urged denial, saying the subdivision’s restrictive covenants were negotiated to bar development in the easterly portion of the lot and that there was no evidence of an earlier dock to justify replacing a pre-existing structure.
“From the record and the deed, this application should be denied,” Mark Brancato said in closing argument for his client, Constance Madden.
Board attorney Mr. Hagerty told members he had reviewed the chain of title and issued a November 24 opinion concluding the deed language, as drafted, does not prohibit the construction of a dock. Applicant counsel also submitted a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection permit dated 04/18/2025 showing a substantially similar structure had been reviewed by the state.
Burton Heffler, attorney for the applicant, summarized the planning rationale and cited the deed language’s carve-out for watercraft: “The deed says it doesn’t apply to watercraft floating on the surface of Lake Hopatcong,” he said, arguing that the restrictions were not intended to bar a dock.
After closing remarks and a brief public comment period, a motion to approve the variance passed on roll call by five affirmative votes to one negative. The clerk recorded the roll call responses on the motion to approve the Gruber application as follows: Mister Dimon — Yes; Mister Kadmick — Yes; Miss Crock — Yes; Mister Maslowowski — No; Mister Rossi — Yes; Chairman Wright — Yes (motion carried 5–1).
The board’s approval was tied to the record submitted at the hearing, including the attorney opinion and the DEP permit. The applicant may now pursue any municipal permits and other authorizations required to construct the dock.
The hearing record shows competing legal interpretations of the deed and that the board resolved the matter on the basis of counsel and the board attorney’s written opinion rather than adverse title evidence or a court ruling. No judicial determination was made at the meeting.
