Board of Adjustment

Approved Minutes 04/01/2024 Tenafly Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting March 4, 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. Brensilber, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Friedman, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Toro, Ms. Farkas Mr. Kominsky Absent: Mr. Cho, Mr. Cytryn Also Present: Mr. Menon, Mr. Zenn, Mr. Hals, Mr. Coder, Mr. Avrahami, Mr. Carruba, Mr. Cichalski, Dr. Paskhover, Ms. Peterson APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of February 4, 2024 A motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Ms. Toro to approve the minutes for February 4, 2024. A voice vote carried the motion. All were in favor; none were opposed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Michael Machlis & Nadezhda Nikulina, 11 Cortland 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) 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 Boris Paskhover, 20 Midwood Drive ZB-2023-20 Extend existing garage. 10’ side yard required – 6.4 proposed (existing 8.9’) (Received 12/14/23 decision by 05/17/24) Mr. Friedman stated on the 2nd page in the 3rd whereas section, the word door should be removed from the second sentence. A motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Ms. Toro to approve the resolution with the removal of the word door from the sentence. In Favor Opposed Mr. Friedman Ms. Toro Mr. Callahan Mr. Lieberman Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 5-0 NEW BUSINESS: Shimon Avrahami, 49 Lylewood Drive ZB-2023-21 Regrade the easterly yard of the property to the property line and construct a retaining wall along the property line to support the new yard grading. Steep slope disturbance 0 SF disturbance of slopes > 25% permitted, 510 SF disturbance of slopes > 25% proposed. Retaining wall height 3’ maximum permitted, 6’ proposed. (Received 12/21/23 decision by 05/17/24) Mr. Avrahami was sworn in as the homeowner of the property located at 49 Lylewood Drive. He stated there is a steep slope in the back of the property. He is proposing to build a retaining wall behind the slope close to the property line and then to fill in that area with dirt to level off the backyard to make it bigger and more useable. He is seeking two variances. The first variance is for steep slope disturbance, the town ordinance does not allow for the disturbance of steep slopes greater than 25%. The second variance is for a 5’ high retaining wall where 3’ is allowed. He presented two sets of plans side by side. The left side was his proposal, where the steep slope will be disturbed. The right side was a set of plans his engineer drew up addressing the concerns of Mr. Hals, the Board Engineer. The plans on the right side will not need any variances as it will not disturb the steep slope and only calls for a 3’ retaining wall that will be 7’ from the property line. This version does not give the applicant the extra backyard space that he is seeking. Mr. Avrahami stated he spoke with Mr. Byrnes, in the Building Department about the rear yard neighbor getting mud on his property when it rains. He stated that Mr. Byrnes feels the proposed plan of disturbing the slope will help correct the neighbor’s mud issues. Mr. Kominsky questioned if Mr. Hals’ recommendation will also address the mud issue for the neighbor, And if it would be more difficult to construct what Mr. Hals is proposing. Mr. Avrahami felt that it would not, because the slope will still exist behind the 3’ retaining wall and there will be nothing there to stop the mud from going down the slope. He stated the benefit of granting the variance is the neighbor will not have to deal with mud on his property after every rain storm. He stated it would be easier for him to construct the version Mr. Hals is suggesting as the wall would only be 3’ and it would be built in a straight line where his is proposing curves in the wall to go around two existing trees. Questions from the Board for Mr. Avrahami: Mr. Friedman questioned if the neighbor would be staring at a 5’ retaining wall, since it will be so close to the property line. Mr. Avrahami stated that he feels the neighbor will be ok with the height of the proposed retaining wall because it will be a wall instead of a mound of dirt and will help with the mud situation. Questions from the Public for Mr. Avrahami: Mr. Carruba, of 47 Lylewood Drive, stated that he is the neighbor that shares the rear property line of 49 Lylewood Drive. He questioned the plans which show a proposed pool and wondered if a fence will have to be placed on top of the proposed 5’ retaining wall, which would add more height to an already high wall. Mr. Avrahami stated there is not going to be a pool. It is on the plans only to get approval for a pool. He plans on selling the house and wants to give the new homeowner the option of having a pool. He stated he is not building a fence neither. These things are up to the new property owner to add if they so choose. Mr.Cichalski, of 166 Riveredge Rd, questioned if a variance for impervious coverage is being sought. Mr. Avrahami stated they are not asking for a variance for impervious coverage. Mr. Friedman stated the plans show the proposed pool as well as a proposed deck and patio. He questioned if the deck and patio were being constructed since the applicant stated the pool is not. Mr. Avrahami stated the deck and patio will be built. Mr. Brensilber questioned what would happen with the impervious coverage, if or when the pool was built. Mr. Avrahami stated the pool has been calculated into the impervious coverage total and it is still within what is allowed. Mr. Hals was sworn in as the Board Engineer. Mr. Kominsky questioned if a retaining wall can be placed close to the property line. Mr. Hals stated there is no setback requirement from the property line to the face of the retaining wall, so it can go right up against the property line. Mr. Lieberman questioned if the higher retaining wall was built, would it meet the requirements for a pool fence. Mr. Hals replied that it would not. Mr. Hals stated the applicant’s plans state the retaining wall to be 5’ where it will actually be 6’. He explained the reasoning why the Borough has a code against steep slope disturbance, as well as quoting from the ordinance regarding soil movement. He stated that although the applicant is willing to build the retaining wall around two trees he will still be removing trees and vegetation from the slope. Mr. Kominsky proposed the same question to Mr. Hals that he asked earlier regarding the difference in runoff with the two different plans. Mr. Hals stated part of the reason the neighbor is getting runoff is the construction itself. With either plan you can still divert the water runoff to Lylewood Drive. The only difference is with the proposed plan the vegetation that is there now will be removed. Questions from the Board for Mr. Hals: Mr. Friedman questioned if the 5’ retaining wall that is being proposed for the rear yard will be continuing along Lylewood as well. He also questioned how Mr. Hals’ proposed suggestion would affect the retaining wall on Lylewood. Mr. Hals stated that the plans submitted by the applicant are not correct because the wall would actually be 6’ along Lylewood. He stated that another variance would need to be applied for, as only a 3’ maximum retaining wall height is allowed. He stated with his recommendation the 3’ wall which would be 7’ from the rear property line would run parallel to the rear property line. The wall would stop about 15’ from Lylewood Drive and then start to curve towards the front of the property so it follows the grades of the contours. Questions from the public for Mr. Hals: None Comments from the Public: Mr. Carruba was sworn in as a neighbor residing at 47 Lylewood Drive. He is concerned that the root system of two very large Oak trees will become compromised with the construction of the retaining wall and is worried that a strong wind will cause the trees to fall onto his house. He also has concerns with the aesthetics of the 5’ proposed retaining wall as a lot of plants and tree will be lost if it is built. He stated he is not totally against the retaining wall but feels it will need more of an urban look to fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Kominsky stated the Borough has a disturbance of steep slope ordinance for a reason. From an engineering perspective it is to stop soil degradation. Mr. Cichalski was sworn in, as the neighbor residing at 166 Riveredge Road. He stated that he is a neighbor that is downhill from the subject property. He is concerned with additional storm water runoff, as his property is already getting excessive amounts of water from another neighboring property. Motion by Mr. Freidman and seconded by Mr. Lieberman to move to executive session. A voice vote carried the motion all were in favor none were opposed. Mr. Lieberman felt the applicant made good points. He also felt that once Mr. Hals explained why the ordinance exists and what would be the result of placing the wall where it is being proposed, it makes sense why the ordinance exists. Mr. Friedman had concerns with the height of the retaining wall. He felt there is an alternate plan that the applicant can use that does not require variance relief. Mr. Brensilber stated that he does not believe that applicant has demonstrated the need for the variance relief. Mr. Callahan stated he felt he needed to hear from an expert in engineering on the applicant’s behalf to explain the benefits and ramifications, if any that this wall will create. He stated the only engineering testimony came from the Board’s Engineer. Motion by Mr. Brensilber seconded by Mr. Friedman to deny the application. In Favor Opposed Mr. Brensilber Mr. Friedman Mr. Callahan Mr. Lieberman Ms. Toro Ms. Farkas Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 7-0 ADJOURNMENT: As there was no further business to come before the Board, a motion was made by Mr. Brensilber and seconded by Mr. Friedman to adjourn the public meeting. A voice vote carried the motion, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 pm. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Peterson Board Secretary