Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Dock Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Land use board approves dock variance at 385 Maximum Drive with survey, dimension conditions

Hopatcong Land Use Board · July 22, 2026
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

The Hopatcong Land Use Board approved a variance for after-the-fact dock and related improvements at 385 Maximum Drive, requiring the applicant to amend the survey to clarify the waterway classification and to verify dock dimensions before sale.

The Hopatcong Land Use Board voted to approve a variance for 385 Maximum Drive allowing the applicant to retain and formalize recent repairs and small additions to a lakeside dock and related site work, subject to two conditions. The board approved the application after public comment and technical questions about whether the drainage feature on the lot should be classified as a regulated stream or a drainage ditch.

Attorney Chris Kolobel, who represented the applicant, told the board the work was “minimus” and framed the application as a request to regularize preexisting structures: “we're just asking for a variance relating to some preexisting structures,” he said. Board members pressed whether the water feature showed as a stream in state mapping and whether the applicant's survey should label it differently. Longtime resident David Cooter London told the board the feature had flooded his family property historically and insisted “this is a stream,” citing the borough’s stormwater-management plan as evidence.

The board directed the borough engineer to review the classification and placed two written conditions on approval: (1) amend the submitted survey to reflect the board’s required labeling (waterway/stream if the engineer concurs) and (2) add verified dock dimensions to the recorded survey. The chair noted these stipulations were intended to protect future enforcement and to ensure any state or county permitting needs are visible in the record. The board made the motion with those two stipulations and approved it by voice roll call.