Board of Adjustment

Minutes Approved 12/04/23 Tenafly Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting October 2, 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. Menon, Mr. Capizzi, Mr. Zenn, Mr. Vince, Mr. Mederos, Mr. Hubschman, Ms. Figurasin, Ms. Silverman, Ms. Lifset, Ms. Peterson APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 11, 2023 A motion was made by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Ms. Toro to approve the minutes for September 11, 2023. A voice vote carried the motion. All were in favor; none were opposed. Mr. Friedman stated for the record, he was abstaining as he was not present at the September meeting. COMMUNICATION: Request letter from Ms. Koo, 108 County Rd., requesting another extension of time. Variance was originally approved on November 4, 2019. One year extensions were granted on Oct. 5, 2020, Nov. 1, 2021 and Oct. 3, 2022. Mr. Cytryn feels there is no indication that the applicant will be financially able to build next year. Mr. Friedman feels things could have changed in four years, there could be new neighbors. Mr. Kominsky feels the extension should be allowed since it is based on financial hardship and if denied, the applicant would have to spend more money to go through the process again. Motion made by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Lieberman to deny the extension request.  In Favor Opposed Mr. Cytryn Ms. Toro Mr. Lieberman Mr. Kominsky Mr. Brensilber Mr. Callahan Mr. Friedman Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 5-2 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 42 Norman Place LLC, 42 Norman Place (ZB-2023-14) Construct a new single family residence. 15’ side yard required – 10’ proposed. (Received 05/15/23 decision by 10/10/ 23) It was discussed that the motion to move the house back 2’ further than shown on the plans was omitted from the resolution. A motion was made by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Ms. Toro to approve the resolution, with the revision that the proposed house will be set back 2’ further from the front property line than shown on the plans. In Favor Opposed Mr. Cytryn Mr. Toro Mr. Callahan Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 4-0 26 Prospect Terrace LLC, 26 Prospect Terrace (ZB-2023-15) Construction of a new two family dwelling. 39.5’ front yard setback required – 26.9 proposed. (Received 06/09/23 decision by 11/21/23) A motion was made by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Ms. Toro to approve the resolution. In Favor Opposed Mr. Cytryn Mr. Toro Mr. Callahan Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 4-0 NEW BUSINESS: Scott & Shauna Salmon, 21 Ravine Road (ZB-2023-16) Construct an addition to the southerly side of the existing dwelling. 15’ side yard required – 6.2’ proposed (6.4’ existing) (Received 07/26/23 decision by 12/12/23) Mr. Capizzi, the attorney for the applicant, stated the subject property is unique in shape. It is a quarter circle in shape and has two straight lines and one large curved line, and is located on the bend of Ravine Rd. Because of the shape of the lot, there is a large portion of the lot being exposed to the front yard setback requirement. The westerly side of the property is a side yard setback. The north side is the rear yard setback. The lot is in the R-10 zone and is undersized. The applicant is proposing to expand the one story screened in sunroom on the southerly side of the house. They are proposing adding a second floor addition over the screened in porch. The existing sunroom is non-conforming due to the side yard setback. The FAR, building coverage and impervious coverage will remain conforming. The relief is for the side yard coverage where 15’ is required; 6.4’ exists and 6.2’ is proposed. The relief is also for the addition of the second floor. Mr. Mederos was sworn in as an expert in the field of architecture. He shared plans dated July 7, 2023. They are proposing to enlarge the existing screened in sunroom and add a second story addition over it. The second floor addition will overhand the porch by 2’ on the Ravine Rd. side. The addition will be even with the existing rear wall of the dwelling. Mr. Mederos stated they are proposing to add an unfinished attic over the addition to eliminate the roofline angles in the bedroom. The siding will match the existing siding of the current home. They are also proposing two A/C units as the house currently does not have central air. The proposed area of the A/C units is to the right of the front of the house, but because of the configuration of the lot the A/C units may be in the 30’ rear yard setback. Mr. Kominsky questioned if a variance is needed for the A/C units. Mr. Vince was sworn in as the board engineer. He stated the applicant did not request relief. He will calculate the numbers and supply an answer later in the evening. Mr. Capizzi stated that the application had been reviewed by the zoning officer, Mr. Byrnes, and the A/C units were not listed by him as non-conforming. Questions from the board for Mr. Mederos: Mr. Friedman questioned if the driving factor to enlarge the screened in porch is to accommodate the new bedroom above it. Mr. Mederos stated yes. Mr. Friedman asked if the applicant planned on screening the A/C units with vegetation to hide them from the view of the street. Mr. Mederos stated the property is nicely landscaped and he would believe the homeowners would provide some sort of screening. Questions from the public for Mr. Mederos: None Mr. Vince stated there are no engineering concerns regarding this application. He checked the numbers and the proposed A/C units will be in a conforming location. Mr. Zenn questioned is there is a requirement to provide screening to the A/C units. Mr. Vince stated he did not believe so. Mr. Capizzi stated the applicant would have no problem screening the A/C units with low lying shrubs. Comments from the public: None Motion by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Mr. Cytryn to move to executive session. A voice vote carried the motion, all were in favor none were opposed. Mr. Friedman stated the request is reasonable and he would support the application. Motion by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Friedman to approve the application. In Favor Opposed Mr. Cytryn Mr. Friedman Mr. Brensilber Ms. Callahan Mr. Lieberman Ms. Toro Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 7-0 Meeting recessed at 8:17 pm Meeting reconvened at 8:26 pm Jason Hart & Christine Rosas -Guyon, 55 Hillside Ave (ZB-2023-11) Construct a rear addition to a single family dwelling. 15’ side yard required – 13.20’ proposed; 30’ Rear yard required – 25.58’ proposed; 20% Building coverage permitted – 33.45% proposed; 30% FAR permitted – 44.95% proposed; 4144 SF impervious coverage permitted – 4360 SF proposed(Received 03/17/23 decision by 09/19/23) Mr. Capizzi, the attorney for the applicant, stated the dwelling is on the corner of Hillside and Ravine. It is a unique shaped property having three property lines. Two sides which are straight and one side that is curved. The lot is also undersized. The existing property was substantially improved circa 1911. As a result the 2 ½ story dwelling in non-conforming in many respects. Much of the non-conformity is due to the large front porch, which takes about 400sf of the FAR, building coverage and impervious coverage. The applicant is seeking to build a modest addition to the back right hand corner of the house. There is a small rectangular area off the back of the house that would be filled in by the proposed addition. The addition will improve the functionality of the kitchen as well as the existing second floor bedroom. The proposed overall increase in area will be about 224 SF. Mr. Ditto was sworn in as an expert in the field of architecture. He presented an exhibit which consisted of site photos, a modified site plan, existing conditions, floor plans, the floor plans that were filed with the application as well as the site plans that were originally submitted as well. One photo showed the existing driveway on Hillside Ave with no garage. The detached garage is located on Ravine Rd on the opposite side of the property. The addition will not be seen from the street. Mr. Ditto stated the existing kitchen is very long and narrow. The proposed addition will improve the condition of the kitchen. They are also proposing to remove the stairs leading to the basement in the back of the house and replace them with a different type of stairs that would be accessible from the new sitting area inside the house. Mr. Ditto stated that some of the existing impervious coverage could be removed. He suggested removing a walkway that is not needed, an existing terrace, and also removing a portion of the driveway. The center of the remaining driveway will be removed and replaced with grass to give it the old school look. By making these changes they would be removing about 506 SF of existing impervious coverage. There is also a one story addition that was added to the house pre 1960. This addition can only be accessed through the basement of the existing house, and is about 760 SF. Mr. Zenn clarified that the applicant is proposing a reduction in the impervious coverage, but not in the FAR. Questions from the board for Mr. Ditto. Mr. Cytryn questioned with the size of the existing house why there was no practical solution to rearrange space to create more suitable rooms. Mr. Ditto replied that with the existing floor plan the existing kitchen backs up to a big fireplace. To the left of the kitchen is a tv room and beyond that is a dining room with another large fireplace flanked by windows. The only space to add onto is the area of the proposed addition. Mr. Lieberman questioned if there was ever any thought in getting rid of the one story addition that was built pre 1960. Mr. Ditto sated that he did not have any conversations about that with the homeowners. Questions from the pubic for Mr. Ditto. Ms. Silverman of 3 Ravine Rd, questioned if the homeowners are planning on using the garage and is that why they are willing to give up the impervious coverage from the driveway. Mr. Ditto replied that he is not sure. He sensed the garage on Ravine Rd is inconvenient to use since it is not near the access to the house. The only area where the homeowners can park and have access to the first floor level of the house is in the existing driveway on the right side of the house. Ms. Silverman questioned if the plan is to remove the entire gravel area to the right side of the house and a car will not be able to park there. Mr. Ditto stated they are proposing to remove the part of the driveway that runs along the entire side of the house, up to the front porch. The driveway from the street to the front porch will remain, with the center piece cut out and replaced with grass. Ms. Lifset of 9 Ravine Rd., questioned what will be done with the existing a/c unit. Mr. Ditto replied that he did not believe the new addition will be in the area of the existing a/c unit. Ms. Lifset questioned if the applicant intended to move the patio. Mr. Ditto stated the existing patio will remain where it is. Ms. Lifset questioned what mediation the homeowner who backs up to this property will have if the patio does get extended. Mr. Capizzi replied that in order for the homeowner to extend the patio, they would need to resubmit another application and be reheard by the board for approval. Mr. Vince stated that he believes the plans he received may be different that the one that was shown on the screen. The numbers seem to be off a couple of feet in places. If the application moves forward the board would need to be provided with the exact numbers so they can be entered into the resolution properly. Mr. Zenn questioned is the house is historic. Mr. Ditto stated it is not in a historic zone nor is it designated as a historic house. Mr. Capizzi requested a brief recess so he could talk to his client. The meeting recessed at 9:15 pm. The meeting reconvened at 9:22 pm. Mr. Capizzi stated that after speaking with his client, he would like to ask the board if the application can be carried. This will give them a chance to further evaluate the plans and come back at another time to address some of the concerns that have been brought up by the board and members of the public. Mr. Kominsky questioned if they were planning on fixing the discrepancies in the numbers that Mr. Vince spoke about. Mr. Capizzi stated they will correct those numbers as well. Mr. Zenn suggested that if the matter is not heard at the November meeting then the applicant will have to re notice. Mr. Capizzi agreed to re noticing if they are not ready by the November meeting. Motion by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Lieberman to allow the applicant to carry the application to a future meeting. A voice vote carried the motion, all were in favor none were opposed. ADJOURNMENT: Motion made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Ms. Toro to adjourn the meeting. A voice vote carried the motion, and the meeting adjourned at 9:28 pm. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Peterson Board Secretary