Board of Adjustment

Minutes Approved 9/11/2023 Tenafly Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting August 7, 2023 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 2023. 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, 2022.” ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Brensilber, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Cytryn, Mr. Friedman, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Toro, Mr. Kominsky Absent: Mr. Cho, Mr. Rustin Also Present: Mr. Haberman, Mr. Quirk, Mr. Lapinig, Ms. Paz, Mr. Zenn, Mr. Hals, Mr. Hubschman, Mr. Pitar, Mrs. Reichenberg, Mr. Reichenberg APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 5, 2023 A motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Mr. Cytryn to approve the minutes for June 5, 2023. A voice vote carried the motion. All were in favor; none were opposed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Michael Cangelosi, 274 Woodland Street (ZB-2023-9) Construct an addition on the existing house and create a circular driveway. The proposed addition does not comply with the Borough’s bulk regulations in respect to the front yard setback requirements and impervious coverage. (Received 02/08/2023 decision by 06/08/ 2023) 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. Lieberman Ms. Toro Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 5-0 NEW BUSINESS: Paul Reichenberg, 18 Lawrence Court (ZB-2023-13) Proposed new rear one story sunroom addition. 30’ rear yard required – 23’ Proposed; 3,795 sf impervious coverage permitted – 4,059 sf proposed. (Received 04/13/23 decision by 10/04/23) Mr. Quirk was sworn in as an expert in architecture. He stated he designed the plans for the one story addition. The existing dwelling is a one story house which is situated on a pie shaped lot at the end of a cul-de-sac. The site plans were presented. Mr. Quirk explained the proposed one story addition will take the place of an existing patio in the rear of the house. He stated the property has a built in hardship because of the shape of the lot. Mr. Quirk explained the elevation drawings that were shown. He stated the existing home is very low profile, and he feels the addition would complement the home very well. The proposed addition would stay with the character and scale of the existing dwelling. The applicant is seeking two variances, rear yard setback where 30’ is required and 23’ is proposed, and impervious coverage where 3,795 sf is permitted and 4,059 is being proposed. Mr. Kominsky stated that Mr. Hals’ completeness letter stated that only the variance for rear yard setback is needed. Mr. Quirk stated that he believed there was one variance also, but the letter of denial from the Zoning Officer, Mr. Byrnes stated that two variances were needed one for rear yard setback and the second for impervious coverage. That is why he included it on the application. Mr. Hals was sworn in as the Board Engineer. He explained that only one variance is needed for this application, which is for the rear yard setback. He believes the discrepancy is the calculations were based on an old survey. He requested an updated survey and now believes that there is no change in impervious coverage as they are building over an existing patio. Mr. Quirk stated that his applicant will now only be seeking variance relief for the rear yard setback. Questions for Mr. Quirk from the Board: Mr. Friedman questioned if there is anything else on the plans that would increase the impervious coverage over what is permitted. Mr. Quirk replied no. Mr. Lieberman and Ms. Toro had questions regarding the impervious coverage. Mr. Hals explained that he believed it to be a clerical error where it was interpreted as a variance where it is clearly not. Mr. Friedman questioned the layout of the home. Mr. Quirk explained the layout and further explained that the level of the addition is going to be 20 inches below the existing dwelling. The actual height of the addition is actually lower than the ridge of the house and can’t be seen from Lawrence Court. Questions from the public for Mr. Quirk: None Questions from the board for Mr. Hals: None Questions from the public for Mr. Hals: None Comments from the public: None 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. Cytryn supports the application. He feels it will not be seen from the street and the family is willing to give up their patio for the addition without asking for additional space for a new patio. Motion by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Lieberman to approve the application. Mr. Brensilber lost connection to the meeting when the vote was taken and was unable to vote on this application. In Favor Opposed Mr. Cytryn Mr. Lieberman Mr. Callahan Mr. Friedman Ms. Toro Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 6-0 Andrew & Erika Lapinig, 11 Norman Place (ZB-2023-12) Demo existing dwelling and construct a new house. 15’ side yard required 6’ proposed, 30’ combined side yard required 12’ proposed, insufficient information: height elevations at 10’ intervals with drawing of structure, front setbacks of adjacent structures. (Received 03/30/23 decision by 10/04/23) Chairperson Kominsky recused himself from this application and left the meeting at 7:58pm. Vice Chairperson Cytryn ran the remainder of the meeting. Mr. Haberman, the attorney for the applicant, stated the applicant wants to demo the existing house and build a new dream house for his wife. There are six variances that have been identified by David Hals, the Board Engineer. 1.) Minimum front yard 38.25’ front yard setback of adjoining home required; 29.89’ proposed. 2.) Minimum side yard 15’ required; 6’ on each side proposed. 3) Combined side yard 36% of lot width (18.08”) required; 23.9% (12.00’) proposed. 4) Maximum building coverage 20% maximum; 22.64% proposed. 5) Maximum Floor Area Ratio 30% maximum; 41.76% proposed. 6) Front yard driveway coverage 30% required; 41.76% proposed The A/C unit is proposed to go on the side of the house, where a 15’ side yard is required and 4.1’ is proposed. Mr. Cytryn asked the applicant if they had considered any other plans with less variances. Mr. Lapinig stated he feels his property is very narrow and without the variances he would not be able to build the house he and his wife want. Mr. Lieberman questioned if the applicant was currently living in the house. Mr. Lapinig stated that they moved out about two years ago because they did not realize the process would take so long. He stated he now rents an apartment about 4 houses down from his house. He stated he needed the bigger house for when family comes to visit from out of state and out of the country. Mr. Pitar was sworn in as a licensed architect. He stated the town in going through a modernization and he tried to keep the plans similar to homes in the neighborhood. He stated the house will be ADA accessible with an elevator. Mr Pitar displayed the architectural plan. The plans show bringing the garage to the front of the property to get rid of the long driveway and demolishing the existing garage. Mr. Pitar also presented a color rendering of the proposed front of the house that he prepared. This was marked as exhibit A1. Questions from the Board for Mr. Pitar: Mr. Brensilber questioned if based on the size of the lot did he believe this is too much for the property and can the property support it. Mr. Pitar stated he believes the property can support it. Mr. Lieberman asked of the six variances, were there anything that could have been changed to eliminate some of them. Mr. Pitar stated that the a/c unit on the side of the house can be relocated to the roof of the house as it is a flat roof and would be screened from view. Questions from the public for Mr. Pitar: None Mr. Hubschman was sworn in as an expert witness in engineering. He stated he prepared the site plan. The existing dwelling is on a narrow lot in the R-10 zone. He stated new construction would bring a benefit to the neighborhood as the house would be esthetically pleasing. The plans would be reducing the amount of impervious coverage already on the property. Mr. Hubschman stated the benefits outweigh the detriments. There seems like there are a lot of variances, but that is due to the width of the property and the FAR variance is because of the proposed back balcony. Questions for Mr. Hubschman from the Board: Mr. Friedman questioned why a new house could not have been proposed with less variance requests. Mr. Hubschman stated the homeowner and architect worked on the plans for two years. Questions for Mr. Hubschman from the public: None Mr. Hals was sworn in as the Board Engineer. He reviewed the variances that are being sought. Questions for Mr. Hals from the Board: None Questions for Mr. Hals from the Public: None Comments from the public: None Mr. Haberman asked the Board if they can continue the hearing to a later date to allow the applicant to come back with a new amended plan, after hearing some of the comments from the board. Mr. Brensilber feels the application should be voted on and if denied a new application should have to be submitted. Motion by Mr. Brensilber and seconded by Mr. Lieberman to move to executive session to discuss if the Board will grant a continuance of the application. A voice vote carried the motion, all were in favor none were opposed. Mr. Lieberman felt the applicant should be allowed to come back to the Board with amended plans. Mr. Cytryn agrees with Mr. Brensilber and feels they should vote on the application tonight and allow them to resubmit a new application, if needed. Mr. Brensilber stated that if the rest of the Board members feel the applicant can amend the plans enough then he will also agree to the continuance. Motion by Mr. Lieberman and seconded by Mr. Brensilber to grant the applicant a continuance to the end of the year, subject to the condition that the amended plans be submitted and reviewed by the Board Engineer before the applicant can be rescheduled to be heard. In Favor Opposed Mr. Lieberman Mr. Brensilber Mr. Callahan Mr. Friedman Ms. Toro Mr. Cytryn Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 6-0 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 9:53 pm. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Peterson Board Secretary