Board of Adjustment

Minutes Approved 01/08/2024 Tenafly Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting December 4, 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. Callahan, Mr. Cho, Mr. Cytryn, Mr. Friedman, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Rustin, Ms. Toro, Mr. Kominsky Absent: Mr. Brensilber Also Present: Mr. Menon, Mr. Capizzi, Mr. Zenn, Mr. Hals, Mr. Dito, Mr. Hubschman, Ms. Figurasin, Ms. Silverman, Ms. Lifset, Ms. Lau, Mr. Sachs, Ms. Sachs, Mr. Goldberg, Ms. Peterson APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 2, 2023 A motion was made by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Friedman to approve the minutes for October 2, 2023. A voice vote carried the motion. All were in favor; none were opposed. COMMUNICATION: 2024 Meeting Schedule Motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Ms. Toro to accept the 2024 meeting schedule. All were in favor; none were opposed. A notice of the schedule will be sent to the appropriate papers and a copy will be posted in the lobby of the Borough Hall, and filed with the Borough Clerk. UNFINISHED 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) A motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Ms. Toro to approve the resolution. In Favor Opposed Mr. Friedman Mr. Toro Mr. Callahan Mr. Cytryn Mr. Lieberman Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 6-0 NEW BUSINESS: Jason Hart & Christina Rosas-Guyon, 55 Hillside Avenue ZB-2023-11 Carried from 10/02/23 meeting – revised plans Construct a rear addition to a single family dwelling. 15’ side yard required – 13.20’ proposed and existing; 30’ rear yard required – 25.58’ proposed (24.33’ existing); 20% Building Coverage permitted-29.93% proposed (31.95% existing); 30% FAR permitted-42.24% proposed (42.28% existing); 3,527 SF Impervious Coverage permitted-3,824 SF proposed (4326 SF existing). (Received 03/17/23 decision by 09/19/23) The Attorney for the applicant, Mr. Capizzi, stated this application was carried from the Oct. 2, 2023 meeting. He stated that none of the proposed improvements that were discussed at that meeting have changed. They did revise the plans and are now also proposing the removal of the existing detached garage. The homeowner is seeking to convert existing one story space into a one car attached garage, mud room and powder room. Also being proposed is a driveway/parking area. This proposal will eliminate the need for building coverage, imperious coverage and FAR variances that were originally being sought. The variance relief that is still needed is for side yard setback on the east side of the property where 15’ is required and 13.4’ is being proposed; and rear yard setback where 30’ is required, 24.33’ exists and 25.58’ is being proposed. Mr. Dito was sworn in as an expert in the field of architecture. Revised colorized architectural plans dated 11/27/23 were introduced and were marked as exhibit A2. These were colorized for the purpose of illustration. They showed the area of the one story space that is being proposed for the single car garage. He stated they are proposing carriage style garage doors and to add a slope to the flat roof to try to pick up on some of the aesthetics of the house. This is all being done at the same height as the existing one story space. The A/C condenser will be placed on the terrace wall by the new driveway and will be screened by new landscaping. Questions for Mr. Dito from the Board: Mr. Cytryn questioned if there were any special circumstances for this proposal to calculate the basement and garage spaces due to the multi -tiered levels of the dwelling. Mr. Dito replied that there is no difference in calculating the usable square footage. Questions from the public for Mr. Dito: Ms. Silverman, of 3 Ravine Rd, questioned if the topography of the lot will change as she sees retaining walls are being proposed. Mr. Capizzi stated the Civil Engineer will speak about the retaining walls when he testifies. Mr. Hubschman was sworn in as an expert in Civil Engineering. He presented the proposed site plan. He stated the existing garage is an eyesore and is unsafe as you need to back out of it onto Ravine Road. He stated Ravine Rd. has a curve in the road making it difficult to back out onto, as well as it being a hill. The proposed driveway area will be relatively flat. They are proposing two 3’ retaining walls. He mentioned that in the Board Engineer’s letter dated 11/16/2023, Mr. Hals stated that the proposed driveway back-up area is 21’ where 25’ is the minimum recommended. Mr. Hals feels garage access would be difficult and consideration should be given to expanding the back-up area. Because of this they are proposing to expand the driveway by adding an extra 4’ to the driveway. Mr. Capizzi questioned if there would be any negative impact to properties in the area of the retention walls and the proposed new driveway. Mr. Hubschman replied no. He stated there is an existing wall along Ravine Rd. The property slopes up about 10’ from Ravine Rd. to the applicant’s backyard. He stated water runoff will flow into catch basins in the roadway on Ravine Rd. He also stated the impervious coverage is being decreased with the removal of a patio and the existing driveway on the easterly side of the property where the driveway will be removed along the side of the dwelling. The driveway from the front corner of the house to the street, will have the center removed creating runners for the car tires. Mr. Kominsky asked Mr. Hubschman to explain the purpose of retaining walls on properties with slopes for the public. Mr. Hubschman provided the revised numbers for impervious and building coverage. Impervious coverage will be reduced by 402’ and building coverage will be reduced by 177 square feet, even with the proposed additions. He stated that both of these variances are being driven by the shape of the lot and the placement of the existing home. Questions from the Board for Mr. Hubschman: None Questions from the public for Mr. Hubschman: Ms. Figurasin, of 8 Ravine Rd. questioned what the proposed material will be for the retaining wall and will water be able to flow through it. Mr. Hubschman stated the wall be made of module block kind of like keystone block, so the water will be able to flow through. Ms. Silverman asked if any fencing would be placed near the retaining walls for safety reasons. Mr. Hubschman stated that a fence is not required for a three foot wall. The shrubbery will act as a fence for the lower wall. They will look into if a guard is needed for the upper wall. Ms. Silverman questioned what would be done to protect the Maple tree on the neighbor’s property during the construction. Mr. Hubschman stated they usually provide tree protection detail to protect the roots of the tree. The tree is on the neighbor’s property and is about 15’ away from the construction site. Ms. Lifset, of 9 Ravine Rd. questioned about the water runoff as she lives downhill from the applicants property. Mr. Hubschman replied that they will do what the Board Engineer recommends. He also stated they are removing existing impervious coverage from the property. Mr. Hals, the Board Engineer was sworn in. He stated the plan has been reduced significantly from the initial application. Originally they were asking for five variances and they are now down to two, which are for a side yard setback and a rear yard setback. He feels they are making a substantial improvement by removing the existing garage and changing to a garage under the house. An improvement on street access is also being made by putting in a new driveway. Questions from the Board for Mr. Hals: None Questions from the Public for Mr. Hals: None Comments from the Public: Ms. Silverman of 3 Ravine Rd was sworn in. She feels the colorized plans were not made public for review before the meeting and she also did not see any elevations on the plans. Mr. Kominsky questioned Mr. Capizzi if the colorized rendering was available to the public for review. Mr. Capizzi stated a complete set of elevations were on file for review. For the benefit of discussion purposes, Mr. Dito colorized a portion of the plans that were submitted and these were marked as exhibit A2. The colorized plans that were submitted tonight did not propose any alterations to what was filed with the Board for review. Ms. Lau of 65 Hillside Ave was sworn in. She voiced her support of the application. Mr. Sachs of 56 Hillside Ave was sworn in. He feels the overall plan improves on what it there. He is in support of the application. Mr. Goldberg of 1 Ravine Rd was sworn in. He stated the current garage is an eyesore and is very happy to see it demolished. He supports the application. Ms. Sachs of 56 Hillside Ave was sworn in. She is happy that the new plans will provide for a new staircase to the garage area, as there have been injuries with the present staircase. Mr. Zenn state that the revised architectural plans, dated 10/20/23, that consisted of 8 sheets was delivered to the Zoning office on 10/27/23 for the publics review. Motion by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Lieberman to move to executive session. A voice vote carried the motion, all were in favor none were opposed. Mr. Cytryn stated he was impressed with the changes and is in support of the application. Mr. Cho feels the solution for the garage is very clever and is a positive from a safety prospective. He supports the application. Motion by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Lieberman to approve the application. In Favor Opposed Mr. Cytryn Mr. Lieberman Mr. Callahan Ms. Cho Mr. Friedman Ms. Toro Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 7-0 Mr. Rustin suggested the Planning Board and Zoning Board as well as the Engineer and Lawyer for the Boards get together and discuss if changes need to be made to the Zoning Rules. Mr. Kominsky stated he would look into it in 2024. ADJOURNMENT: Motion made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Mr. Cytryn to adjourn the meeting. A voice vote carried the motion, and the meeting adjourned at 8:44 pm. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Peterson Board Secretary