City Council

Approved Minutes 6/3/24 Tenafly Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting May 6, 2024 7:30 pm MINUTES OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT STATEMENT: Chairperson Kominsky read the Open Public Meetings Act Statement: “In accordance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act P.L. 1975, chapter 231, adequate notice has been made of this meeting by sending the same to The Record and The Star Ledger. Posting said notice on the public bulletin board in the lobby of the Municipal Center, posted to the Municipal Web-Site, and filing said notice with the Tenafly Municipal Clerk, all which occurred within 10 days for the calendar year of 2024. Additionally, Amended and Restated Notice of Annual Meetings of the Zoning Board of Adjustment notice has been made of this meeting by sending the same to The Record and The Star Ledger. Posting said notice on the public bulletin board in the lobby of the Municipal Center, posted to the Municipal Web-Site, and filing said notice with the Tenafly Municipal Clerk, all which occurred on December 20, 2023.” ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Brensilber, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Cytryn, Mr. Friedman, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kominsky, Ms. Toro, Ms. Farkas* Absent: None Also Present: Mr. Zenn, Mr. Hals, Mr. Coder, Mr. Madaio, Ms. Pantale, Mr. Martins, Mr. Bronzini, Mr. Persky, Mr. Menon, Ms. Peterson APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of April 1, 2024 A motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Mr. Cytryn to approve the minutes for April 1, 2024, with the correction of one word. A voice vote carried the motion. All were in favor; none were opposed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Diana Ladd, 39 Lindley Drive ZB-2023-17 New in-ground pool. Minimum Side Yard Pool – 20’ minimum required; 18.2’ & 19.7’ proposed, Minimum Rear Yard Pool – 15’ minimum required; 13.4’ proposed, Minimum Side Yard Pool Equipment - 20’ minimum required; 15’ proposed. (Received 12/21/23 decision by 06/27/24) A motion was made by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Friedman to approve the resolution.  In Favor Opposed Mr. Cytryn Mr. Friedman Mr. Brensilber Mr. Callahan Mr. Lieberman Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 6-0 Gabe Auslander, 14 Walnut Drive ZB-2024-02 Addition was added to right side of home in 2012. The addition was constructed with a side yard setback of 9.1’ where 10’ is required. A motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Mr. Cytryn to approve the resolution. In Favor Opposed Mr. Friedman Mr. Cytryn Mr. Brensilber Mr. Callahan Mr. Lieberman Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 6-0 *Ms. Farkas joined the meeting at 7:37 pm NEW BUSINESS: Riccardo Bronzini, 5 Sisson Terrace ZB-2023-22 Construct a garage on a 55’ x 197’ lot. 25% maximum coverage permitted – 28.13% proposed. 3770.6 SF impervious coverage permitted – 5327.7 SF proposed 4213 SF existing; 3’ driveway side yard setback required – 0’ proposed 0’ existing. (Received 12/28/23 decision by 05/29/24) Mr. Madaio, the attorney for the applicant stated the property is located at 5 Sisson Terrace. The property is 55’ wide and is somewhat narrow for the R-9 zone. The existing property does not have a garage. He believes the town ordinance states that every home must have a garage. Ms. Pantale was sworn in as an expert in the field of architecture. She stated the proposed garage is one story with a ridge height of 14.9’ where 15’ is permitted. The front width of the proposed garage is 14’ and widens to 20’ halfway through. The widening is because of an outside open storage shed that will be attached to the side of the garage for the storage of bikes and other outdoor items. The garage will have a standard size garage door which will be 8’ high by 9’ wide. The length of the garage will be 30’. The extra length is to accommodate a tandem two car garage. The garage should be able to hold two modest sized cars. Ms. Pantale stated there will be a dormer to let light into the back area of the garage. The garage will be sided to match the house and will have a gabled roof. Ms. Pantale stated the proposed garage does not need a side yard variance, but the driveway does. The existing driveway is on the property line with a 0’ setback. They are asking to continue the 0’ setback further into the backyard until a point where they can gradually move the driveway away from the property line to line up with the garage. Mr. Kominsky asked if the length of the garage was what was creating the need for the impervious coverage variance. Mr. Madaio stated the length is not creating the need as the property is already over in impervious coverage. Any size garage structure that is built will need a variance. Mr. Bronzini was sworn in as the homeowner of 5 Sisson Terrace. He stated the house was built in 1916 and he purchased the house in 2022. He would like the garage so he can get at least two cars out of his driveway. Questions for Mr. Bronzini from the Board: None. Questions for Mr. Bronzini from the Public: None. Questions for Ms. Pantale from the Board: Mr. Lieberman questioned if the town gave a credit for a garage. Ms. Pantale stated Tenafly gives 400 Sq. Ft. in credit in the FAR for a garage. The proposed garage will increase the FAR, but it will still be below what is permitted. 37.5% is permitted, 29.2% is existing and 30.9% is proposed with the credit being taken into account. Mr. Lieberman questioned if the driveway is what is taking up a lot of impervious coverage. Ms. Pantale stated that was correct. Mr. Friedman questioned what the squared footage of the proposed attached, open shed is. Ms. Pantale stated the open shed will be 6’ x 15’ or 90 Sq. Ft. Mr. Madaio stated that if the board wishes to remove the proposed shed to cut down on impervious coverage they can remove the shed from the plans. A few Board members questioned why a tandem garage is being proposed and not a side by side two car garage. Ms. Pantale stated that a modest side by side garage is 20’ X 20’. She explained that more impervious coverage would be needed for the driveway to widen for the use of the second garage door. Questions for Ms. Pantale from the public: None Mr. Martins was sworn in as an expert in the field of Engineering and Surveying. He displayed a topographic survey dated May 10, 2023, which was marked as Exhibit A-1. It depicted the existing conditions of the property. He then displayed the site plan drawing dated Nov.16, 2023. He explained that the covered front porch is 9.6’ off the side property line. There is no way to move the driveway in 3’ to accommodate the driveway side yard setback, as the driveway would be too narrow. He stated the driveway placement is being dictated by the placement of the house on the property. The proposed driveway will move away from the property line as quickly as practical, and at some point becomes conforming in its distance from the property line. He also stated there is an existing shed in the rear left corner of the property which will be removed. Mr. Martins stated they are proposing a seepage pit in the backyard area to catch the water from the roof drains on the garage as well as creating an inlet in the driveway to allow the runoff to drain directly into the seepage pit. Questions for Mr. Martins from the Board: Mr. Lieberman questioned if there is a minimum width or maximum length of a driveway for emergency vehicle access. Mr. Martins replied that emergency vehicles typically park in the front of the house and the emergency personnel will enter through the front door of the home, or in case of a fire in the rear of the property they will run the hoses down the driveway. Mr. Friedman wanted to clarify that the easterly neighbor is uphill from the driveway on the property line so any run off will run into the rear of the property and not onto the neighbor’s property. Mr. Martins replied that is correct and also added that there will be curbing along the driveway. Mr. Callahan questioned why the turn-around area in the rear of the driveway is needed. Mr. Martins stated it is needed so the homeowner does not have to back up the entire length of the driveway. Questions for Mr. Martins from the Public: Mr. Persky of 7 Orchard Place questioned what plans will be in place to protect the trees on the property. Mr. Martins stated they do not intend to remove any of the trees on the property. He stated that the homeowner does not want the trees disturbed and is having the driveway narrowed to 8’ wide at one point so it will not disturb a tree that is near the property line. Mr. Hals was sworn in as the Board Engineer. The existing house and driveway already exceed the maximum impervious coverage that is allowed for this property. He stated there is an ordinance in Tenafly that requires every house to have a garage. The property in question is a non-conforming condition because it does not have a garage. Building any size garage on the property will require a variance. Questions for Mr. Hals from the Board: Mr. Lieberman questioned if the width of the driveway required another variance. Mr. Hals replied no. Mr. Cytryn questioned if the garage would actually be long enough for two cars to fit in. Mr. Hals replied that it depends on what size car is being parked in the garage. Mr. Friedman questioned if there is any advantage to closing in the proposed shed on the side of the garage. Mr. Hals stated the shed is already included in the FAR so there is nothing preventing them from enclosing the shed. Questions for Mr. Hals from the public: None Comments from the public: Mr. Dabby, a resident at 112 Magnolia, was sworn in. He stated in concept he is in favor of the application. It is a beautiful old house that is in need of a garage. He feels what is happening around town now, is that old houses are being torn down and being replaced with houses that have two car garages right up in front of the house. He feels this is making the character of the neighborhood lose the old town feel. Motion by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Friedman to move to executive session. A voice vote carried the motion all were in favor none were opposed. Mr. Lieberman feels there are pros and cons. Mr. Cytryn stated there is a benefit that a seepage pit will be installed to catch runoff from the garage and driveway. Mr. Callahan stated he does not feel they need the side shed attached to the garage. Mr. Zenn stated they are eliminating one non-conformity by adding three other non-conformities. Motion by Mr. Callahan and seconded by Mr. Friedman to approve the application with the removal of the proposed open shed on the side of the garage.  In Favor Opposed Mr. Callahan Mr. Cytryn Mr. Brensilber Mr. Friedman Mr. Lieberman Ms. Toro Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 4-3 Mr. Madaio requested that the applicant be allowed to keep the existing shed in the rear of the yard that they were going to remove as part of the application. Mr. Zenn stated no as the application was approved with the proposal of the removal of that shed. ADJOURNMENT: As there was no further business to come before the Board, a motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Mr. Brensilber to adjourn the public meeting. A voice vote carried the motion, the meeting adjourned at 9:13 pm. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Peterson Board Secretary