Waldwick Planning Board Approves Property Realignment Amidst Confusion

In a recent meeting of the Waldwick Planning Board, a primary decision was made regarding the realignment of property boundaries, concerning Judy Anne Rickley’s property on M Avenue. This comes as a solution to address the misconception that many residents held about their property’s true dimensions.

The application in question, labeled SUB 23-3 69 M, sought to adjust lot lines between properties, particularly lots 58 and 53. Bruce Whitaker, representing the applicant, explained the main goal was to annex a portion of Rickley’s property to another, ensuring larger backyard spaces for the involved parties. This realignment didn’t create any new lots nor require any public notice, qualifying it as a minor subdivision.

Described by Whitaker as a “request for basically a realignment of a lot line,” this move was not unprecedented. Prior adjustments had been made further down the road, dealing with the same tail of property shown on the current plans. It is this tail of property, or “strip of land,” that caused the initial confusion for several residents. Many mistakenly believed their lot lines extended further than officially documented. A significant portion of the discussion revolved around a shed that is currently situated on the wrong property, a matter which Whitaker assured would be addressed privately between the concerned parties.

On the side, there was a mention of potential future applications concerning similar lot line issues. Some board members wondered if it would’ve been more efficient to address all the potential realignments now, rather than piecemeal over time. Whitaker hinted that future realignments are possible, especially if more residents recognize the discrepancies in their property descriptions.

In another notable point, there was a clarification provided on some circulating rumors. It was emphasized that there are no plans for merging two boards and that zoning and planning will remain distinct entities. Residents were reassured, with a statement urging them to “sleep well tonight knowing that.”

The meeting concluded without any further pressing applications or business.

Did we get something wrong? Let us know.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:


Planning Board Members:

Trending in
New Jersey: