Board approves contested two-car garage for 26 Roberta Lane over neighbor objections

The Waldwick Planning Board approved a variance on Aug. 26 allowing an addition that will place a two-car garage about 4.1 feet from the property line at 26 Roberta Lane, despite persistent objections from the next-door homeowners who said the change would severely reduce light, privacy and increase runoff risk.

Architect Ed Sherman, accepted earlier in the hearing as an expert witness, told the board the property is an undersized corner lot in an R‑1 zone and that the proposed single-story addition is driven by the lot’s narrowness and the homeowners’ desire to remain in place. "We're just doing a one-story addition, trying to get a two-car garage onto the site," Sherman said, and he added the height would be kept low to match the neighborhood’s cottage-style houses and that lot coverage would increase only marginally.

Neighbors objected at length. Mary Berlinger, who lives next door and said her family has had an in-ground pool for more than 30 years, told the board the plan would reduce the existing separation from about 23.6 feet to roughly 4.1 feet and described the cut in spacing as "not a minor variance. That's major." Berlinger raised concerns about reduced sunlight to the pool, loss of privacy along her patio and barbecuing area, and possible changes to drainage that have already caused water in her basement after heavy rains.

Sherman and the applicant responded that the new work must comply with New Jersey’s Residential Site Improvement Standards, which require runoff to be contained on-site, and he said he would submit photos and additional views to show existing screening and sight lines. Sherman also said the proposed sunroom would sit where an existing deck now sits and that there would be no second‑floor windows facing the neighbor’s pool area.

Board members asked whether a single-car garage or a different layout had been considered. Sherman said narrowing to a single-car design would displace interior spaces and reduce the homeowners’ accessibility—he cited medical issues for the homeowners as part of the practical rationale for the two-car plan but reiterated that hardship determinations must be property-based under land-use law.

After discussion and a short period for the five board members to confer, a motion to approve the application carried. The board noted objections raised by neighbors and recorded that written evidence and additional photographs had been submitted for the record. The chair reminded the applicant that an assessment under the Council on Affordable Housing (COA) may be triggered by a valuation change and that a 45-day objection period begins when the resolution is published.

The board’s approval does not eliminate avenues for challenge: the chair said aggrieved parties may appeal to the town council or the Superior Court within the statutory deadlines.

Next steps: the applicant may apply for building permits after satisfying any COA requirements and the resolution is published; neighbors retain appeal rights during the 45-day statutory period.