Board of Adjustment

Approved Minutes 03/04/2024 Tenafly Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting February 5, 2024 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 2024. 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 20, 2023.” ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Callahan, Mr. Cytryn, Mr. Friedman, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Toro, Mr. Kominsky Absent: Mr. Brensilber, Mr. Cho, Ms. Farkas Also Present: Mr. Menon, Mr. Zenn, Mr. Capizzi, Mr. McClellan, Mr. Keyes, Mr. Kuybida, Mr. Rozengarten, Mr. Kim, Mr. Machlis, Dr. Paskhover, Mr. Valente, Ms. Peterson REORGANIZATION: APPOINTMENT OF BOARD PROFESSIONALS FOR 2024: BOARD ATTORNEY: Motion by Mr. Cytryn, seconded by Mr. Lieberman to nominate Mr. Zenn of the Law Firm Cullen& Dykman, LLP, as Board Attorney. A voice vote carried the motion. All were in favor none were opposed. BOARD ENGINEER: Motion by Mr. Friedman, seconded by Mr. Cytryn to nominate Mr. Hals of the Engineering firm Schwanewede Hals & Vince, as Board Engineer. A voice vote carried the motion. All were in favor none were opposed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of January 8, 2024 A motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Ms. Toro to approve the minutes for January 8, 2024. A voice vote carried the motion. All were in favor; none were opposed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Andrew & Erika Lapinig, 11 Norman Place ZB-2023-12 Construct a new single family dwelling with front loading garage and rear patio. 15’ minimum side yard required – 10’/10’ proposed on each side. (Received 03/207/23 decision by 04/02/24) A motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Ms. Toro to approve the resolution. In Favor Opposed Mr. Friedman Ms. Toro Mr. Callahan Mr. Lieberman Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 5-0 NEW BUSINESS: Michael Machlis & Nadezhda Nikulina, 11Cortlandt Place ZB-2023-18 Construct a new single family dwelling. 25’ Front yard setback required -15’ proposed; 30’ Rear yard setback required – 8.6’ proposed; 25% Lot coverage permitted – 28.7 % proposed; 37.5% FAR permitted – 44.2% proposed; 45% Impervious coverage permitted – 50.7 proposed (Received 11/14/23 decision by 05/17/24) Mr. Capizzi, the attorney for the applicant, stated the property is located in the R-7.5 zone. It has a lot size of 4,534 SF. The lot is constrained as it has more width than depth. He stated the width of the property is 90.67’ with a depth of 50.0’. It consists of a single family dwelling that will be demolished to construct a new single family home. The proposed home will need variance relief for front yard setback, rear yard setback, maximum building coverage, maximum impervious coverage and maximum FAR. He stated that although all these variances are needed the relief will be less than the existing nonconforming structure. Mr. McClellan was sworn in as an expert in the field of Civil Engineering. He presented site plans dated Aug. 16, 2023 which were revised on Dec. 18, 2023. He stated the lot area is deficient where only 4,534 SF is existing and 7,500 SF is required. The depth of the property is only 50’. He explained the depth of 50’ creates a problem for this property as the minimum front yard setback is 25’ and the minimum rear yard setback is 30’. The rear yard setback overlaps the front yard setback, leaving no building envelope for this property. There is nothing that can be built on this property that would not need a variance. The current house has a front yard of 2.7’. A portion of the existing covered porch and walkway are encroaching into the right of way. The rear yard is only 7.3’. The FAR for the existing house is already nonconforming. They are proposing to remove the existing house and replace it with a new single family dwelling. With this proposal the front yard setback will increase from 2.7’ to 15’, where 25’ is required. He explained the house will have an angle to it. The closest point will be 15’ but the house will angle back on both sides eventually ending up at the corners of the house with a 19.5’ setback. The rear yard setback is proposed at 8.6’, where the existing house is at 7.3’. Like the front of the house the rear of the house is also angled creating a 13.5’ setback near the center of the dwelling. The side yard setbacks are conforming. They are proposing a gravel driveway off of Cortlandt Place. A gravel walkway will go from the driveway across the front of the house and along the south side of the house. On the south side it will widen to create a patio. A gravel walkway will also run along the length of the rear of the house. All of the gravel area is calculated into the impervious coverage calculation of 50.7%, where 45% is required. Maximum building coverage is 25% and 28.7% is being proposed. The height of the structure will be conforming at 30’. The FAR will be reduced from 45.3% to 44.8%. They are providing drainage for the entire roof area by placing a 1,000 gallon seepage pit in the ground for all the roof leaders. Two trees will be removed. One is a 6’ Dogwood near the driveway, and the other is a 12’ Pine Tree in the rear yard. Questions from the Board: Mr. Cytryn questioned how the FAR of the proposed home can be smaller, when the proposed new home appears so much larger than the existing house. When looking at the street view on the plans it seems to take up the entire lot, where the existing house is only taking up half the property. Mr. Capizzi stated that architect will be able to answer that question when he testifies. Questions from the public: None. Mr. Kuybida was sworn in as an expert in the field of Architecture. He presented colorized plans that were issued on 11/16/2023 and revised on 12/18/2023. This six page document was labeled exhibit A1. In regards to Mr. Cytryn’s question, he explained the basement level on the existing house has 2’ 3” of the basement below grade and 5’ above grade, therefore the basement is counted in the FAR. With the proposed plans the lower level of the basement is half above grade and half below grade. The borough’s definition of FAR is, if 50% or more of the basement is below grade it is not counted in the FAR calculations. So the two lower levels of the proposed dwelling are not counted in the FAR. Mr. Kuybida stated the house is a split level design. The exterior of the home is a modern farmhouse style. The exterior of the home will be covered in vertical and horizontal siding. The roof will be pitched to allow the rain water to run into the seepage pit. The home will be eco- friendly. The front of the house will be in line with the adjacent neighbor’s homes. This will allow natural daylight and ventilation of the street. Questions from the Board for Mr. Kuybida: Mr. Cytryn questioned the bulk of the house that is facing the street. Mr. Kuybida stated he believes the house might appear that way because of the second story over the garage. He stated the house fits into the height limit. The property is being improved on by moving the house back from the street. He also stated that they are not applying for relief for side yard setback or height variances, as they are in compliance with both. Mr. Kominsky questioned if the lack of windows on the front of the house could make the house appear larger. Mr. Kuybida agreed that it could. Mr. Friedman questioned if there were solar panels on the proposed dwelling. Mr. Kuybida replied yes. Mr. Capizzi stated the existing house is more front to back as opposed to side to side. With the depth of the lot, the home really needs to be situated left to right. This means the house will be longer rather than deeper, which will create more elevation along Cortlandt Place than presently exists. Questions from the Public: None Mr. Keyes was sworn in as an expert in the field of landscape architecture. He presented a colorized rendering of his landscape plans, which were marked as Exhibit A2. He stated the applicant wanted to save as many trees as possible on the property. He discussed the trees and hedges that will be kept including a 17’ hedge that starts in the front of the property and runs down the left side of the property, and a few 30’ – 35’ trees. He also stated that there is a Cherry tree in the rear of the house that creates a nice buffer. He stated that he believes the bending of the house relieves the mass of the house from the street. He feels the house is appropriate for the neighborhood and the streetscape. Mr. Kominsky questioned if the variance they are seeking with regards to the rear yard setback is specific to the corners of the house. He is concerned that if the application is approved, that a new homeowner at a later date might be able to move the center of the house out creating a straight line across the back of the house. Mr. Capizzi stated the resolution would be particular only to the proposed plan set. Questions for Mr. Keyes from the Board: None Questions for Mr. Keyes from the Public: None Comments from the Public: Mr. Rozengarten of 12 Cortlandt Place, Unit B felt the new house would improve the street. Mr. Kim of 7 Cortlandt Place felt the architecture has its own personality, which is good for the town. He feels it is good to get different architectural styles other than the same styles that are always being built around town. 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 felt the design of the house was well done and very imaginative, but he still feels that too much house is being presented to the street. Mr. Friedman felt the house appears to be large because the existing house is turned vertical to the street. Mr. Callahan felt that is does appear wider than deeper to the eye. He stated styles and people change through the years. He feels trees are important to the town and the applicant wants to preserve the existing landscape. He would support the application. Mr. Kominsky stated the architect’s plans show new and fresh ideas. He feels it is a wonderful plan. He also stated that they are proposing seepage pits where none existed. Mr. Lieberman stated this is a severely deficient lot. He feels the proposed rooms are all moderately sized. Ms. Toro felt the architect did a wonderful job creating a house that fits into the neighborhood. She also feels it is commendable to come before the board with a green plan. She is in support of the application. Mr. Zenn reminded the board that even though the front of the house looks very large, it does meet side yard and height regulations. Motion by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Ms. Toro to approve the application. In Favor Opposed Mr. Friedman Ms. Toro Mr. Callahan Mr. Cytryn Mr. Lieberman Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 6-0 Boris Paskhover, 20 Midwood Road ZB-2023-20 Extend existing garage. 10’ side yard required – 6.4’ proposed (existing 8.9’) (Received 12/14/2023 decision by 05/17/2024) Dr. Paskhover was sworn in as the applicant. Mr. Valente was also sworn in as an expert in the field of architecture. Dr. Paskhover stated he is asking for variance relief for the left yard setback. He wishes to extend his existing garage 2.5’ to make it a usable structure. The extension of the garage will face the neighbor’s side yard. He stated that the garage as it is now is not large enough to park a car in and still be able to get out of the car. Dr. Paskhover presented photos showing a car at the entrance to the garage. Mr. Valente stated the garage door width will remain the same as they are just looking to create room to be able to open the car door once inside. Questions from the Board: Mr. Lieberman questioned what year the house was built. Dr. Paskhover stated he believed it was in 1938 Mr. Kominsky questioned if the resolution can be written to reflect that a second story can’t be built over the garage. Mr. Valente stated that they are planning on building on top of it but they will be within all the setbacks. He stated any future construction they do will not require any variances. Mr. Zenn questioned if the extension of the garage will have any impact on the driveway. Mr. Valente stated the driveway will become about 1.5’ wider because the garage door will shift slightly to the left to center the door. He stated that making the driveway wider will not create the need for an impervious coverage variance. Questions from the public: None Comments from the public: None Motion by Mr. Lieberman and seconded by Mr. Friedman to move to executive session. A voice vote carried the motion, all were in favor none were opposed. Motion by Mr. Lieberman and seconded by Mr. Friedman to approve the application. In Favor Opposed Mr. Lieberman Mr. Friedman Mr. Callahan Mr. Cytryn Ms. Toro Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 6-0 ADJOURNMENT: As there was no further business to come before the Board, a motion was made by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Ms. Toro to adjourn the public meeting. A voice vote carried the motion, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Peterson Board Secretary