Board of Adjustment

Minutes Approved Dec 5, 2022 Tenafly Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting November 7, 2022 7:30 pm MINUTES OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT STATEMENT: Acting Chairperson Cytryn 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. Callahan, Mr. Friedman, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Toro, Ms. Khorozian, Mr. Cytryn Absent: Mr. Cho, Mr. Kominsky Also Present: Mr. Menon, Mr. Zenn, Mr. Vince, Mr. McClellan, Mr. Siegel, Mr. Sotherden, Mr. Lee, Ms. Penick, Mr. Madaio, Mr. Silber, Mr. Bonanno, Mr. Reed, Mr. Teeter, Ms. Gregory, Mr. Dolan, Mr. Kawalli COMMUNICATIONS: None Approval of Minutes: October 3, 2022 A motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Mr. Lieberman to approve the minutes for October 3, 2022. A voice vote carried the motion. All voted in favor; none were opposed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Onal, 30 Bliss Ave (ZB-2022-18) One and two story additions. 15’ side yard setback required - 8.05’ proposed; 67.70 combined side yard required - 43.53’ proposed (received 06/29/22; decision by 10/29/22) Mr. Cytryn asked the Board for their opinion of the proposed resolution. Mr. Friedman agreed that the resolution complied with what was discussed at October’s meeting. With no opposition, Mr. Friedman made a motion to approve the resolution, and Mr. Lieberman seconded. In Favor Opposed Mr. Friedman Mr. Lieberman Mr. Brensilber Mr. Callahan Ms. Khorozian Mr. Cytryn Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 6-0 Parikh, 28 North Browning Avenue (ZB-2022-19) Straighten driveway. 30% Front yard driveway coverage permitted (400.5sf) – 43% proposed (576.7sf) (received 08/10/22; decision by 12/10/22) Mr. Cytryn asked the Board for their opinion of the proposed resolution. Mr. Friedman agreed that the resolution complied with what was discussed at October’s meeting. With no opposition, Mr. Friedman made a motion to approve the resolution, and Ms. Khorozian seconded. In Favor Opposed Mr. Friedman Ms. Khorozian Mr. Brensilber Mr. Callahan Mr. Lieberman Mr. Cytryn Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 6-0 NEW BUSINESS: Mr. Cytryn stated that a consent for continuance was signed by the applicant for 109 Windsor Road. The application will be heard at a future meeting. The Bon Scott Group, 16 Cambridge Road (ZB-2022-21) Existing outside wall was proposed to be moved in 8-12 inches. After demo, looks like it may impact the neighboring house. 10’ side yard setback required – 9’ proposed (existing 9’) (received 7/15/22; decision by 11/159/22) Present was the applicant Mr. Bonanno representing the Bon Scott Group and his architect Mr. Teeter. Mr. Bonanno was sworn in. Mr. Bonanno explained he is doing a renovation at 16 Cambridge Road. The original plans were rejected because he needed to move the side wall in 10 inches. He is seeking a variance to keep the side wall where it originally is so it doesn’t disrupt the neighboring properties. The wall has been there for many years. Questions from the Board for Mr. Bonanno Mr. Friedman questioned if this is a rebuild or a renovation as only the foundation is original to the house. Mr. Bonanno answered the foundation and the one wall that is still standing are what is left of the original structure. It is still a renovation but it is a significant renovation. Mr. Teeter was sworn in as an expert licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. He stated that there are multiple variances mentioned in the engineer’s letter. Mr. Cytryn asked if we needed to clarify the 5 variances that the letter mentioned. The five variances mentioned are for minimum side yard and combined yard setback, maximum building coverage, maximum impervious coverage and FAR. Mr. Teeter agrees that those are the five variances mentioned. He states that the left side wall nearest the neighbor at 114 Cambridge is the existing wall that is being proposed to be kept were it is. The stairs that were on that side of the house have been removed. The entrance will remain on the front side of the house and the garage will become a two car garage. A second floor will be added to the existing house. Questions from the members of the board for Mr. Teeter. Mr. Friedman stated that he is trying to figure out how the plans were approved and a permit was issued and the house is almost complete and yet there are variances that if not granted would require then to tear down part of the house. Mr. Bonanno replied that the house is not almost complete but does agree that if the approval isn’t given than the wall will have to be moved. Mr. Cytryn clarified that it is not just the wall but if there are issues with the variances there might have to be changes to the structure that was built. Mr. Teeter stated that the original plan was to move the wall and that would explain the permits being granted. Mr. Vince was sworn in representing Schwanewede/Hals Engineering. Mr. Friedman said that he was more concerned that the original application wasn’t denied for the FAR. Mr. Bonanno said that Mr. Friedman brought up a good point. He stated that he had a conversation with Mr. Hals about this. The only thing from a layman’s perspective was that the issue was deciding to not move the wall back ten inches. When Mr. Hals did his review he found more variances that had to be addressed after the permits had already been issued. His original application was approved by the building department without any rejection to the FAR. Mr. Zenn asked if the plans submitted for the building permit that was received, were for moving the wall 9 inched in. Mr. Bonanno stated that was correct. The permit was for moving the wall in 9 inches, but then he submitted an update to have the wall remain where it is, and that was the one that got rejected. Mr. Zenn asked if the plans that were submitted when the permit was issued reflect a second floor. Mr. Bonanno replied that the plans did reflect a second floor. Mr. Cytryn questioned if the drawings that are being shown represent what was submitted and what was approved. Mr. Teeter replied the drawings that are being shown are what was submitted for the hearing. The plans have been revised many times. Mr. Vince questioned if there were any walls to be remaining on the plans that were approved. Mr. Teeter stated that according to the plans he is presenting there is nothing to remain of the first floor. He stated he did not have the original plans in front of him to look at. Mr. Zenn asked if the plans also proposed adding a rectangular piece to the foundation. Mr. Teeter stated yes, in order for the two car garage to be constructed they had to eat into the basement with backfill and slab. The area that is being discussed is 11’ long by 6’ wide. Mr. Zenn then asked what was being taken away to reduce the maximum impervious coverage. Mr. Teeter stated that part of the driveway is being taken away as well as paving from the backyard, the side stairs that are facing 14 Cambridge and the pathway to those stairs. With removing these items they are .92% over the maximum impervious coverage. Mr. Hals figures calculate to 1.4 % over. Ms. Khorozian asked if the board has been provided with the original approved plans with this application. Mr. Teeter replied that those plans were not submitted to the board. Mr. Friedman asked if the original plans included an overage on the FAR. Did they build something beyond what was approved or were the plans approved that were over FAR. Mr. Vince answered that Mr. Hals received the plans after the applicant was denied based on the side yard wall. The plans were difficult to read and there were some things on them that were not clear. During the review process, the FAR they believe was not calculated properly. He stated that he did not see the plans and he believes Mr. Hals didn’t see them either when they were approved by the building department. It is possible is was the same house, however it was improperly calculated therefor the FAR was never picked up. Ms. Khorozian questioned if the applicant/architect would agree that the FAR was an issue but there was a miscalculation and therefor overseen. Mr. Teeter agreed. Ms. Khorozian asked if this was an existing non-conforming but due to the extent of the work performed, it became a new construction which triggered issues and is no longer considered existing non-conforming. Mr. Vince answered that the FAR was never part of the existing non-conforming conditions, the house was originally a one story house. Ms. Khorozian stated that she would like to view the original plans and permit. Mr. Zenn stated that the existing non-conformity of the setback, if left as is, would be presumed as a legal non-conforming use; but when they add a second floor above that it exacerbates that non- conformity that requires a variance for the setback. Mr. Cytryn clarified when they are building vertically the addition of the second floor even though it’s the same distance changes the nature of the variance. Mr. Zenn stated that yes building up a second story could potentially impact light and air. Questions from the public: Mr. Lee resident at 14 Cambridge Road asked Mr. Teeter did he measure the front setback. The front setback is supposed to be 28’ but it is only 23’6”. Mr. Teeter responded that a property surveyor licensed in the state of NJ provides that information for the property line and building so he cannot respond to that question. Mr. Vince stated that Mr. Hals received a survey dated 3-25-22. He made a site inspection and determined the survey was accurate and the improvements shown. As part of the board engineer’s review they do not verify all the boundary lines. As far as the front steps the ordinance does allow front steps to encroach into the front yard setback by three feet. He stated he has measured the scaled plans provided by Mr. Teeter and the distance is less than 3 feet, so that would not count as the offset. In this case the offset would be measured to the house. Mr. Lee questioned why the garage foundation was moved 18 inches. Mr. Vince stated that as part of the proposed plan the side wall was to be moved towards the front of the house. He explained that according to the plans there is currently a 22’ distance to the front of the garage. They are proposing to remove a portion of the front of the garage, which will make the distance to the front of the garage 28.3’. Ms. Penick of 14 Cambridge Road questioned why the discussion if based on the house not being built yet, when in fact the building has already been built. Mr. Cytryn stated that it is his understanding that the board needs to assess the variance regardless of what’s been built. Ms. Penick questioned with regards to the 9’ from her property line why the builder has built out additional feet on that line. She wanted to verify that not all of the foundation is existing. Much of it is new foundation that has been put down for the purpose of building a garage. Mr. Zenn stated that we have already spoken about the 11’x6’ area that is being added to the garage area. Mr. Vince states that after looking at the plans again he realizes that on the survey there is a slight jog to the house. The existing garage on the left hand side is in 9 inches from the house wall that continues behind it. On the proposed plans the house and garage walls are at the same distance from the property line. He questioned why they could dig for a foundation for the garage to be built closer to the property line, but are going for a variance to leave the existing wall where it is because by moving it back 9 inches, might impact the neighbors. Mr. Teeter stated that this is a garage foundation. It is not 8 or 9 ft. below grade. It is only 3.5 ft. below grade. Mr. Cytryn clarified that the wall to the house was never moved and the wall for the garage was moved to the left 9 inches. Mr. Bonanno replies yes that is the variance that he is applying for. Mr. Cytryn stated that it was his understanding that the variance request was because they were building vertical and a variance is needed to go vertical at 9’ from the property line. Mr. Teeter stated the request if for the entire side yard to be at 9’ from the property line. Ms. Penick questioned how digging up the foundation to move the wall in 9” going to affect her property. Mr. Teeter stated the adjacent property is within 18’ of the wall in question. The wall is about 8-9 ft. below grade. Shoring and excavation requires additional work and protection to the property adjacent to it. To alleviate any risks they did not want to remove the wall. The garage foundation is a 3.6’ footing, which is not the same as an 8-9’ dig. Comments from the public: Mr. Lee from 14 Cambridge Road was sworn in and commented that he is frustrated that the he did not see any stakes put in the ground by a surveyor designating the property line. Mr. Cytryn replied that there was testimony by Mr. Vince attesting to the processes that were followed. They might not have been what he expected to see but the processes were followed. Ms. Penick from 14 Cambridge was sworn in she listed her concerns as follows: 1. The request for the variance is based on fundamental untruths 2. Approximately 95% of the structure that is already built is brand new. Feels this is no way a build out or renovation like it was proposed. 3. New house does not meet the required setbacks that all the neighbors have. 4. Built a new wall and foundation from the front of the garage and is only 9’ from the property line changing the variance they are seeking. Motion by Mr. Lieberman and seconded by Mr. Friedman to move to executive session. A voice vote carried the motion. All voted in favor; none were opposed. Ms. Khorozian felt that she still did not have accurate facts. She wished that she could have seen the original application to get a bit more history to base her decision on. She would like to see if work has been done beyond what they were supposed to do, even if it was unintentionally. Felt some of the testimony was confusing. Ms. Toro stated that her thoughts aligned with what Ms. Khorozian stated. There was contradictory testimony given, and there is a credibility issue as well. Feels that it is impossible to make a decision until she sees the original application to see what was proposed at that time. In regards to the FAR she didn’t feel the applicant showed the justification on why they needed to increase it, or any of the negative criteria for it. Mr. Friedman agreed with Ms. Toro in regards to the FAR. Mr. Cytryn and Mr. Zenn discussed whether the application should be voted on tonight or if the applicant would like to sign a consent for continuance so they can supply missing information at a future meeting. It is the consensus of the board to grant the applicant the opportunity to come back at a future date to present missing information. Mr. Bonanno agreed to sign a consent for continuance form and will come back at a future date with the missing information. Mr. Friedman stated that with a D variance the applicant will need a super majority vote in order for the variance to pass. Motion by Mr. Liebermann and seconded by Mr. Friedman to carry to the December 5th meeting. In Favor Opposed Mr. Lieberman Mr. Friedman Mr. Brensilber Mr. Callahan Ms. Toro Ms. Khorozian Mr. Cytryn Roll Call Vote: Motion to Carry to December 5th meeting approved 7-0 Silber, 1 Palmer Avenue (ZB-2022-20) Keep existing rear and side yard, adding living space over garage, raise current height to permitted. The proposed scope of work will require the following variances and any other variances discovered during a technical review by the board engineer. 1. FAR required 30%, proposed 40.3% 2. Setback variance for installation of a generator and a/c condenser. 3. Relief will also be needed for intensifying pre-existing front and side yard setbacks (received 9/01/22; decision by 01/01/23) Present was attorney Mark Madaio on behalf of the homeowner, he was sworn in by Mr. Zenn. Mr. Madaio explained the property is in the R10 residential zone and is only 5,180 sf. It is less than half of the required size. It is a grossly undersized lot. The applicant is seeking to build a second floor over the garage. The second floor will conform to the height variance. The total impervious coverage also conforms. Mr. Sean McClellan’s civil engineering credentials were reviewed and he was sworn in as an expert in his field. Mr. Madaio asked Mr. McClellan if he prepared the engineering site plans for this application. Mr. McClellan confirms he did and they are dated 8/23/2022 and they were last revised 10/10/2022. He states that they plans were revised to accommodate the recommendations made by Mr. Hals. These changes were made after the denial of a previous application. Mr. McClellan explains that the original building line will remain except for the right back side of the house where there is no foundation. They are taking Mr. Hals’s suggestion and are proposing to remove a 2.5’ x 10’ section of the back of the garage increasing the side yard from 3.9’ to 6.4’. This is also the area where a second floor is being proposed over the garage. Mr. McClellan went on further to explain that there is an existing porch on the front right corner of the house. They are proposing keeping a portion of the porch as a covered porch and the remaining part of the existing porch will now become part of the living area. There will also be a small section in the front of the house that will be moved out 4.5’ and the front of the garage will be moved out 3’. The net addition for the first floor level will be 51sf. with the removal of the section of the garage in the back. Also suggested by Mr. Hals was to move the generator and A/C units. Mr. McClellan proposed to move the generator to the side of the garage between the garage and the patio. The a/c units are also proposed to be moved in the same area. By moving the generator and a/c units, two variances have been eliminated. The front yard variance by moving the generator and the side yard variance by moving the a/c units. Mr. McClellan states that there is currently no drainage system on site. They are proposing to add a seepage pit that will collect rain water runoff. That will cover the entire house even though only 51sf is being proposed to be added to the existing house. Questions from the board for Mr. McClellan: Mr. Friedman questioned if the FAR has changed with the reduction the minimum side yard and maximum building coverage. Mr. McClellan believes the FAR did not change because the area that was taken off was for the garage and the garage in Tenafly does not count towards the FAR. Questions from the public for Mr. McClellan: Carl Reed from 147 Westervelt Ave. asked if he understood it correctly that the footprint of the first floor is basically staying the same and the only change is that the structure is going up six feet. Mr. McClellan replied the only change in structure is the removal of part of the back of the garage and the addition of a small section to the front of the garage area. Mr. Vince asked Mr. McClellan if it would be possible to move the walkway over more to the east closer to the house so the trees are not impacted. Mr. McClellan stated that they will be able to move the walkway over. David Siegel of 151 Westervelt Ave. Asked if the FAR was 50%. Mr. Madaio stated that the letter form Mr. Hals states the new FAR to be 40.3%. The 50% FAR was from the original application that was denied. Mr. Segal also questioned if the statement on Mr. Hals reports stating that this is a corner lot with plenty of light, air and open space surrounding the two street sides, holds true for the neighboring house on Westervelt Ave. Mr. Madaio replied that a planner will testify to any potential negative impact the proposal will cause. He agreed with Mr. Hals’s statement that the corner lot provides light, air and open space but it is also uniquely burdened in its requirements to have two front yards. Mr. Silber was sworn on by Mr. Zenn. He states that the current house is a two bedroom, one bathroom house. He is proposing to make it a three bedroom, two bathroom house. The bedrooms are on the second floor and he is proposing to put a third bedroom on the second floor as well. Questions for Mr. Silber from the board: Mr. Friedman wanted to verify that Mr. Silber did scale back his plans as the original plans that were denied were proposed at 50% FAR and now only asking for 40%. Mr. Silber agreed with that statement. Questions from the public for Mr. Silber: none Ms. Gregory was sworn in by Mr. Zenn as a licensed professional planner in the state of NJ. She testified that the proposed plans are not changing most of the setback variances but adding volume the house by adding the second floor. The original house roof line is described as having a raised dormer in the front. The proposed is more of a Tudor style with much higher pitches on the roof. Ms. Gregory stated that the c variances are all based on hardship because of the undersized lot and because of it being a corner lot creating two front lots that pushes the house back further. As for the FAR Ms. Gregory stated that she did an analysis of the homes within the 200 foot radius of 1 Palmer and found the median home size to be 2,000 SF. The FAR that is being proposed is 2,086 SF, which is very close to what the median house size is. She feels the size of the proposed house will blend in to the neighborhood as well as the Tudor style house as there are other similar styles in the neighborhood. Ms. Gregory stated that a larger building creates more runoff into the ground and less ground to have the runoff go into. They are meeting the maximum impervious coverage for the lot. Also they are creating a thousand gallon seepage tank for water runoff. The water runoff will remain on the site. The positive criteria is they are upgrading a building that is in need of some repair, they are upgrading the aesthetics to the site, and they are also providing storm water management on the site. She also believes that adequate light, air and open space is being provided. Questions from the Board for Ms. Gregory: Mr. Friedman questioned about the impact of light and air to the house to the west. He questioned if most of the second floor that is being added over the garage be past the house to the west. Ms. Gregory replied that the second floor addition over the garage will be past the house on the west. Questions from the public for Ms. Gregory: Mr. Reed questioned if the ridge line on the proposed plans is in the same place as the original house. Ms. Gregory stated that it is. Mr. Reed asked for confirmation that most of the height is being sucked up the first gable and that the actual ridge line is not going up 6 ft. Ms. Gregory stated that was correct. Comments from the Public: Mr. Reed commented that the presentation addressed and cleared up the three concerns that he had with the original proposal. He wanted to thank the board and the builder of the house for addressing those issues. Mr. Siegel commented that he agreed with what Mr. Reed had to say. Motion by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Mr. Lieberman to move to executive session. A voice vote carried the motion. All voted in favor; none were opposed. Mr. Friedman feels that Mr. Silber and his team have attempted to address the concerns from the original application while still building a useable house. He is in favor of the application. Motion by Mr. Brensilber and seconded by Mr. Friedman to approve the application. In Favor Opposed Mr. Brensilber Mr. Friedman Mr. Callahan Mr. Lieberman Ms. Toro Ms. Khorozian Ms. Cytryn Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 7-0 ADJOURNMENT: Motion made by Mr. Brensilber and seconded by Mr. Friedman to adjourn the meeting. A voice vote carried the motion, and the meeting adjourned at 10:43p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Peterson Board Secretary