Board of Adjustment

Approved Minutes 5/6/2024 Tenafly Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting April 1, 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. Cytryn, Mr. Friedman, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kominsky Absent: Ms. Toro, Ms. Farkas Also Present: Mr. Zenn, Mr. Hals, Mr. Coder, Mr. Werner, Ms. Ladd, Mr. Auslander, Ms. Auslander, Ms. Peterson RESIGNATION: Mr. Kominsky stated that Mr. Cho has resigned from the board. The Mayor is looking for a suitable replacement. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of March 4, 2024 A motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Mr. Lieberman to approve the minutes for March 4, 2024. A voice vote carried the motion. All were in favor; none were opposed. UNFINISHED 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) A motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Mr. Lieberman to approve the resolution.  In Favor Opposed Mr. Friedman Mr. Lieberman Mr. Brensilber Mr. Callahan Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 5-0 NEW BUSINESS: Diana Ladd, 39 Lindley Drive ZB-2023-17 (continued from January 8th meeting. New pool plans submitted) New in-ground pool. Minimum Side Yard, Pool – 20’ minimum required; 18.2’ & 19.7’ proposed, Minimum Rear Yard, Pool – 15’ minimum required; 13.4 proposed, Minimum Side Yard, Pool Equipment – 20’ minimum required; 15’ proposed. (Received 12/21/23 decision by 06/27/24) Mr. Zenn stated that Mr. Cytryn has certified that he has viewed the recording of the January 8th meeting and is eligible to vote on this application. Ms. Ladd was sworn in as the owner of 39 Lindley Drive. Mr. Werner remained under oath from the January 8, 2024 meeting, as an expert in the field of pool construction. Mr. Werner stated he listened to the concerns the board had with the original pool plans and has revised the plans to address those concerns. He stated that the original application was asking for variance relief for the side yard setback where 20’ is required and they were proposing 6’ and also for side yard setback for pool equipment where 20’ is required and 13’ was being proposed. The revised plans shifts the pool to the center of the yard. The three new variances they are seeking are side yard setbacks where 20’ is required and they are proposing 18.2’ and 19.7’, the pool equipment side yard setback where 20’ in required and 15’ is being proposed and rear yard setback where 15’ is required and 13.4 is proposed. The rear yard setback is now needed due to the repositioning of the patio. Mr. Werner explained that the only other place that the pool equipment would be able to go is the space between the deck and the pool. He stated this spot would put the electrical equipment too close to the pool. Mr. Hals, the Board Engineer, stated that Mr. Werner missed one variance that was originally being asked for which was for maximum impervious coverage. The need for this variance has been eliminated on the revised plans. Mr. Werner stated that was correct. The variance was no longer needed because of the downsizing of the patio. He stated they kept the pool size the same as originally proposed, at 12’ x 24’. He explained that this is considered a small pool. The proposed pool is only 292 Sq. Ft., where a normal sized pool is 512 Sq. Ft. Shrinking the pool down any further could create a hazard. He did eliminate the side steps on the outside of the pool, which was a concern of the members of the board, from the original plans and has now moved the steps into the corner of the pool. Moving the steps also helped with the side yard setback. Mr. Werner stated the filtration system is very quiet. He played a recording of a standard pump vs. the multi speed pump that he would be using, to show how quiet that pump really is. The volume of the recording could not be heard for either pump through Zoom. Mr. Lieberman stated different pumps have different sound levels depending on what RPM they are running at. He stated that Mr. Werner stated the pump he was installing was a multi speed pump. Mr. Werner stated it is a Federal mandate that he use the pump he would be installing. He explained that it would be running at 1800 RPMs twenty four hours a day for energy efficiency, as opposed to a single speed pump which runs at 3450RPMs for ten hours a day. Ms. Ladd stated her daughter loves to swim. She wants to install a pool to provide her daughter with the same opportunity she had while growing up. Questions from the Board for Mr. Werner: Mr. Friedman asked for a clarification on the side yard setback for the pool equipment. He stated he thought Mr. Werner stated 13’ is being proposed, but the revised plans show 15’. He believes 13’ was the proposed setback on the original proposal. Mr. Werner stated Mr. Friedman was correct. The revised plans are asking for a 15’ pool equipment setback, where 20’ is required. Questions from the Board for Ms. Ladd: None Questions from the Public for Mr. Werner: None Questions from the Public for Ms. Ladd: None Mr. Hals was sworn in as the Board Engineer. He state the lot is located in the R-9 zone. It is an existing undersized lot for the zone, with a lot size of 6,000 Sq. Ft. He stated since the original application the applicant has made a few changes to the plan, including eliminating the need for an impervious coverage variance. He restated the three variances that are being applied for and stated there is no place on the lot to place the pool equipment that would be conforming. Questions from the Board for Mr. Hals: Mr. Lieberman questioned if there was room on the property for tanks for storm water run-off. Mr. Hals stated there was room for the tanks. Mr. Friedman questioned if there is a retention system shown on the plans. Mr. Werner replied a retention system is shown on the plans in the upper left labeled Cultec recharger chamber w/ gravel. This is not a standard seepage tank. It is the Cultec chambers, which take up less space on a diameter. Questions from the Public for Mr. Hals: None Comments from the Public: None Motion by Mr. Brensilber and seconded by Mr. Friedman to move to executive session. A voice vote carried the motion all were in favor none were opposed. Mr. Lieberman felt the applicant has done their best to fit the pool and pool equipment. He stated they have revised the plans to reduce some of the variances and have also eliminated the impervious coverage variance. Mr. Cytryn felt it is a reasonable ask. He stated it is a small lot and the applicant tried their best to address every issue that was raised. Mr. Zenn reminded the board that even though the pool plans were revised to include some of the suggestions that were mentioned at the January meeting, it does not mean that the board has to approve the application. The changes were just suggestions and did not guarantee an approval of the application if they were taken. Motion by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Friedman to approve the application. In Favor Opposed Mr. Cytryn Mr. Friedman Mr. Brensilber Mr. Callahan Mr. Lieberman Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 6-0 Gabe Auslander, 14 Walnut Drive ZB-2024-02 Addition was added to the right side of the home in 2012. The addition was constructed with a side yard setback of 9.1’ where 10’ is required. Mr. & Ms. Auslander were both sworn in as the owners of the property located at 14 Walnut Drive. Ms. Auslander stated they had an addition built onto their home in 2012 to accommodate her elderly parents moving in so she could help care for them. She stated they thought everything was done correctly. Mr. Auslander stated the lot is an odd shape, with one side of the property line angling in as it gets to the rear of the property. This caused the addition to accidently be built into the side yard setback. He stated the required side yard setback is 10’ and the back corner of the house is at 9.1’. Mr. Kominsky asked if they are only talking about a small portion of the addition. Mr. Lieberman stated according to the survey it is only the back corner. Mr. Auslander stated he spoke with the architect who drew up the plans for the addition about the issue. The architect stated they would have to get a variance and that he would take care of it for them. Mr. Auslander stated he thought everything was taken care of. When he went to the Building Department a few months ago he found out differently. Apparently all the paperwork was filed by the architect but he was never told by anyone that he need to provide the borough with an application and escrow fee. Ms. Auslander explained to the board that during and after the construction of the addition her husband was having medical issues, and she thought everything had been straightened out with the town. Mr. Kominsky questioned if they ever received any citations from the town regarding the addition. Mr. Auslander stated they received a letter in 2013 from the building Department stating they needed a property inspection as the as-built showed the addition was in the side yard setback. Questions from the board for the Auslander’s: Mr. Lieberman questioned who the architect was. Mr. Auslander stated it was Mr. Blake in Englewood, NJ. Mr. Friedman stated he does not see any adverse action in the file. Mr. Zenn stated there are situations where a contractor had made a mistake and the homeowner or contractor wants to correct it. Questions form the Public for the Auslander’s: None Mr. Hals was sworn in as the Board Engineer. He stated he reviewed the Building Departments file with the original plans for the addition, which did show it was supposed to be built at 10’, not the 9.1’ that was constructed. He stated the right hand property line is not perpendicular to the street. What is in question is a small triangle of the addition, and in fact most of the house is further away from the side yard setback. He stated if the application were to be denied the homeowners would have to cut the entire side of the house off and reconfigure the house and roof line. Questions from the board for Mr. Hals: Mr. Friedman questioned if the property line ran perpendicular to the street would the addition be ok. Mr. Hals stated that everything would have been fine if the property did not angle. Questions from the public for Mr. Hals: None Motion by Mr. Lieberman 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 felt it was a Di minimis request. It is a very small corner in question and it is not something that can easily be remedied. He is in favor of the request. Mr. Kominsky agreed with Mr. Freidman and is also in favor. Motion by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Mr. Lieberman to approve the application. In Favor Opposed Mr. Friedman Mr. Lieberman Mr. Brensilber Mr. Callahan Mr. Cytryn Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 6-0 CLOSED SESSION: A motion was made by Mr. Brensilber and seconded by Mr. Cytryn to move into Closed Executive Session to discuss on-going litigation. Minutes of the meeting will be taken and released to the public at the time that the matter is resolved. After the closed session, the Board will reconvene to the public meeting zoom link to adjourn this public meeting. This meeting was adjourned to Closed Session at 8:19pm. ADJOURNMENT: As there was no further business to come before the Board, a motion was made by Mr. Lieberman and seconded by Mr. Cytryn to adjourn the public meeting. A voice vote carried the motion, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Peterson Board Secretary