Board of Adjustment

Tenafly Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting September 12, 2022 7:30 pm MINUTES OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT STATEMENT: Chairperson Kaminsky 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 2022. 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 23, 2021.” ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Brensilber, Mr. Cho, Mr. Cytryn, Mr. Friedman, Ms. Khorozian, Ms. Toro, Mr. Kominsky Absent: Mr. Callahan, Mr. Lieberman Also Present: Ms. Peterson, Mr. Menon, Mr. Zenn, Mr. Hals, Mr. McClellan, Mr. Zausner, Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Valente, Mr. Capizzi, Mr. Bash COMMUNICATIONS: None INTRODUCTION OF NEW ZONING BOARD SECRETARY – Sharon Peterson Approval of Minutes: July 11, 2022 A motion was made by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Ms. Toro to approve the minutes for July 11, 2022. A voice vote carried the motion. All voted in favor; none were opposed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Silber, 1 Palmer Drive (ZB-2022-13) Rebuild single family house. 25’ front yard setback required 20.7’ & 13.2’ proposed; 20% building coverage permitted 29.7% proposed; 15’ side yard required 3.9’ proposed; Generator proposed in front yard setback; A/C condenser proposed in side yard setback. (Received 4/19/22; decision by 8/19/22) Mr. Kominsky asked the Board for their opinion of the proposed resolution. Mr. Friedman stated the first version that was received needed to be corrected, The resolution was corrected and the resolution now complies with what was discussed at July’s meeting. With no opposition, Mr. Friedman made a motion to approve the resolution, and Mr. Cytryn seconded. In Favor Opposed Mr. Friedman Mr. Cytryn Ms. Toro Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 4-0 Antifonario, 81 Palmer Avenue (ZB-2022-14) Install covered patio/pergola in rear yard. 20% lot coverage permitted, 23.5 proposed; 15’ side yard permitted, 10.6’ proposed; 30% FAR permitted, 32.7% proposed; 27’ combined side yard required, 20.6 proposed. (Received 4/11/22; decision by 8/11/22) Mr. Kominsky asked the Board for their opinion of the proposed resolution. Mr. Cytryn agreed that the resolution complied with what was discussed at July’s meeting. With no opposition, Mr. Cytryn made a motion to approve the resolution, and Mr. Friedman seconded. In Favor Opposed Mr. Cytryn Mr. Friedman Mr. Brensilber Ms. Toro Ms. Khorozian Ms. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 6-0 NEW BUSINESS: Bash, 230 Highwood Avenue (ZB-2022-16) In-ground pool, new deck and patio. Pool permitted in rear half of property – front half proposed. (Received 6/21/22; decision by 10/21/22) Present was homeowner Marc Bash, his attorney Mr. Capizzi, and engineer Mr. McClellan. Mr. Capizzi explained that the applicant wants to build an in-ground pool, new deck and patio. A variance is needed because the proposed pool will not be located in the rear half of the lot due to existing steep slopes. A retaining wall with a height of 5.5’ is also being proposed by the pool area where the maximum height allowed is 3.’ The extra height is needed to reduce the initial intrusion into the steep slope area. Mr. Mcclellan was sworn in as an expert in civil engineering. He stated that the back half of the property has slopes that exceed 25%. They are seeking a variance to put the pool closer to the house. They are also seeking a deep slope variance because by placing the pool closer to the house ,there will remain slopes exceeding 25%. The last variance they are seeking is for placement of a retaining wall where a portion of the wall will be 5.5,’ which exceeds the 3’ height limit. The height is needed because of the grade falling off in the back portion of the patio area. Questions from the Board: Mr. Brensilber questioned how the run off of water to the neighbor to the west was going to be handled. Mr. Capizzi stated that there is a plan with the neighbor to the south located at Block 2507 Lot 34, to channel the ground water run-off into a swale that already exists on the neighbor’s property to the south. Paul Keyes is designing this and plans to start construction on it next week. This was not part of the application but the southerly neighbor did call with concerns regarding ground water run-off. Mr. Keyes, Mr. Capizzi, Mr. Bash and the southerly neighbor did meet to discuss this concern. There is no formal agreement. The clients decided to do this on a handshake deal as the neighbors have known each other’s families for years. Questions from the public: Mr. Zausner, a neighbor to the south located at Block 2507, Lot 12.01 asked about the impact on his property regarding the ground water run-off, as he has not met with anyone regarding this. Mr. McClellan stated that the property is going to be graded so water flows to the swale located on the property of Block 2507 Lot 34. The swale will correct all pooling water on Lots 12.01 and 34. Town engineer Mr. Hals was sworn in and provided further information on this application. He stated that this is a classic C1 variance. The property is very long and narrow as you go further back in the property. If you were to remove the narrow piece of property from the back, then the pool, where it is being proposed, would actually be in the rear portion of the property. He stated that the proposed location is actually the best location for the pool as it has the minimal amount of steep slope disturbance. In regards to the retaining wall he stated that he would recommend approval as it would reduce the amount of slope disturbance, reduce the amount of water run-off to other properties and is a direct benefit to the public. He stated he feels the plan that is being proposed for the drainage issues will be an improvement to the area and will be beneficial to all parties. Questions for Mr. Hals from the Board: Mr. Brensilber asked if Mr. Hals spoke to both the homeowners at lots 12.01 and 34 and who the drainage plan would benefit. Mr. Hals stated that he specifically spoke with the homeowner from lot 34 and feels the water pooling in the rear yard and running off across the pipes is going to affect the property to the rear not the property to the right. He stated that run-off does come from this property, and unfortunately run-off does not know property lines. He feels what is being proposed will not impact drainage from this property, He feels the proposal will improve the drainage improvements Questions for M. Hals from the Public: None Motion by Mr. Brensilber and seconded by Mr. Cho to move to executive session. A voice vote carried the motion. All voted in favor, non were opposed Mr. Brensilber feels the pool fits the property. He stated the drainage concerns seem to be satisfied as long as Mr. Capizzi does mind that being stated in the Resolution. He would approve the application. Mr. Zenn stated the wording he would us is “Drainage improvements that have been proposed with the neighbor are subject to the review and approval of the Borough Engineer.” Motion by Mr. Brensilber and seconded by Mr. Cho to approve the application as submitted. In Favor Opposed Mr. Brensilber Mr. Cho Mr. Cytryn Mr. Friedman Ms. Toro Ms. Khorozian Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 6-0 Michael & Rachel Goldberg, 16 Grandview Terrace (ZB-2022-17) New garage on vacant driveway & removing existing driveway. 15% building coverage permitted, 17.4 proposed. 22.5% FAR permitted, 25% permitted and proposed. (Received 07/29/22; decision by 10/29/22) Present was homeowner Mr. Goldberg and his architect Frank Valente. Mr. Goldberg was sworn in, as well as Mr. Valente who was sworn in as a licensed architect in the state of NJ and as an expert witness. Mr. Valente stated they are seeking a variance for building coverage. He explained that this is a house with a two car garage that has to be entered from the rear of the property. You need to access this by coming in from the street driving to basically where the kitchen would be, then you would turn to head to the back of the property and drop down approximately 8’ and come around and try to pull into the existing two car garage. He states this is not practical. The homeowner is looking to take away the old driveway by the garage which will make the impervious coverage comply. To do this they would like to build a new garage next to the kitchen. He feels this is more practical for this property. Mr. Kominsky asked Mr. Valente if this was his opinion is this is the best option for the property. Mr. Valente agreed that this was the best option. Questions for the witness from the board: Mr. Friedman asked what was being done with the old garage. Mr. Valente explained the garage door would be removed and sealed up and it would then become basement space. Mr. Cho wanted to know if this was a standard two car garage. Mr. Valente stated it is standard but has a little bit of area to the left because he had to make the garage slightly on an angle to get the two doors in. Mr. Kominsky asked to make sure that this was just a variance for building coverage and not also impervious coverage. Mr. Valente stated it was just a variance for building coverage. The impervious coverage is over but they will be giving it back once the old driveway is removed leading to the old garage. Ms. Khorozian asked how the impervious coverage was being made smaller. Mr. Valente explained with the existing garage and driveway the impervious coverage is over by 1,500 plus feet. By building the new garage where proposed, the old driveway will not be needed anymore, making the impervious coverage go down. Mr. Goldberg stated that once the driveway is removed it will be filled in with grass. Questions from the public for the witness: None Mr. Hals was sworn in and commented that there are two existing non conformities to this property, with one being the imperious coverage. Right now the property is at 36% coverage, and the proposal would bring it down to 27.6%, where 30% is permitted for this property. The other non-conformity is that in an R-20 zone, the driveway has to be 10’ away from the property line. In this case it is right up to the back of the property. By removing both of these issues, they would remove two non- conformities. He stated the building coverage for the garage they are proposing will be 17.4, % where 15% is permitted. Questions for Mr. Hals from the board: Mr. Brensilber asked if he saw any negatives to this proposal. Mr. Hals stated that he saw no negatives to this proposal. He visited the site and felt this will be better for the applicant. Questions from the public: for Mr. Hals: None Comments from the public: None Motion by Mr. Brensilber and seconded by Mr. Cho to move to executive session. A voice vote carried the motion. All voted in favor; none were opposed. Mr. Friedman felt this was a reasonable request. He wanted to note that the application states it is a D variance when in fact is a C variance. He is in favor of approving the variance. Mr. Cytryn concurred with the view that this is both modest and positive. Motion by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Mr. Cytryn to approve the application. In Favor Opposed Mr. Friedman Mr. Cytryn Mr. Brensilber Mr. Cho Ms. Toro Ms. Khorozian Ms. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 7-0 Before the meeting ended, Mr. Kominsky asked the board members if they were still in favor of holding virtual meetings. Ms. Khorozian stated she found the virtual meetings more convenient. Mr. Brensilber agreed with Ms. Khorozian. Mr. Zenn stated that they are not obligated to have in-person meetings and can still hold Zoom meetings. Mr. Friedman suggested hybrid meetings. Mr. Kominsky stated he is not a fan of Hybrid meetings. The meetings will continue by Zoom until further notice. ADJOURNMENT: Motion made by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Brensilber to adjourn the meeting. A voice vote carried the motion, and the meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Peterson Board Secretary