Board of Adjustment

Approved Minutes 7/1/24 Tenafly Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting June 3, 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. Cytryn, Dr. Paskhover, Ms. Toro, Mr. Kominsky Absent: Mr. Brensilber, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Friedman, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Farkas Also Present: Mr. Zenn, Mr. Hals, Mr. Menon, Ms. Peterson, Mr. Rotati, Mr. Werner, Ms. Berson, Ms. Koblenz, OATH OF OFFICE: Dr. Paskhover was sworn in as a board member to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Cho. Term expires 1-1-2025. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of May 6, 2024 A motion was made by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Ms. Toro to approve the minutes for May 6, 2024. A voice vote carried the motion. All were in favor; none were opposed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Riccardo Bronzini, 5 Sisson Terrace ZB-2023-22 Construct a garage on a 55’ x 197’ lot. 25% maximum coverage permitted – 28.13% proposed. 3770.6 SF impervious coverage permitted – 5327.7 SF proposed 4213 SF existing. 3’ driveway side yard setback required – 0’ proposed 0’ existing. (Received 12/28/23 decision by 05/29/24) A motion was made by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Kominsky to approve the resolution. In Favor Opposed Mr. Cytryn Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 2-0 NEW BUSINESS: Fabrizio Rotati, 109 Windsor Road ZB-2023-19 Construct a second story addition over an existing one story sunroom on the left side of the house. Side yard minimum required 15’ – 9.8’ existing and proposed. Combined side yard 36% of lot width required - 30.1% existing and proposed. (Received 12/01/23 decision by 06/18/24) Mr. Rotati was sworn in as the homeowner of 109 Windsor Road. He stated there is a one story sunroom on the left side of the house. He is proposing to build an addition over the sunroom to create a two story structure. The new space will be for a study area and additional closet space for the master bedroom. The two variances he is seeking is for side yard coverage where 15’ is required and 9.8’ is existing and proposed, and combined side yard where 36% of lot width is required and 30.1% is existing and proposed. The new addition will be kept to the same style of the existing house. Mr. Rotati stated that on the right side of his house there is a two story bump out. By building a second floor on the left side it will make the house symmetrical. He also stated there a lot of trees on the left side of the house between the neighbor’s house and his. Mr. Kominsky questioned if the second story addition will affect the air and light on the neighboring property. Mr. Rotati stated it will not affect the neighbor as the entire area has large trees between the two properties. Mr. Zenn questioned what the difference is between the plans that were submitted in 2022 and the plans that have now been submitted. Mr. Rotati explained there are no changes in the plans. He went on further to explain that he was set to be heard by the board in August of 2022, but that did not happen as there was no quorum. At that time his wife and he were undecided about what they wanted to do with the house so they did not pursue the application. They have since decided to go through with the small addition. Questions from the board for Mr. Rotati: Mr. Cytryn questions if the construction will impact the trees. Mr. Rotati stated he has spoken with two contractors and they both believe there will be no disruption of the current foliage and landscaping. Questions from the public for Mr. Rotati: None Mr. Hals was sworn in as the Board Engineer. He stated he has no issues with the application. The variances already exist and the addition will not be encroaching any further into the side yard or combined side yard. Architecturally the homeowner is making the dwelling look symmetrical so the left side will now match the right side. It is a very modest addition and it will fit in very well with the neighborhood. Questions from the Board for Mr. Hals: None Questions from the Public for Mr. Hals: None Comments from the public: None Motion by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Ms. Toro to move to executive session. A voice vote carried the motion all were in favor none were opposed. Board member feel it is a modest, reasonable request which will make the house symmetrical. Motion by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Ms. Toro to approve the application. In Favor Opposed Mr. Cytryn Ms. Toro Dr. Paskhover Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 4-0 Michal Berson; 17 Coppell Drive ZB-2024-04 Construct an in-ground swimming pool with a paver patio, pool equipment and a generator. Impervious coverage 3,783 SF maximum – 4,054 SF existing, 4,374 proposed. Pool equipment side yard setback 20’ required – 8.5’ proposed. Generator side yard setback 15’ required – 11.2’ proposed. (Received 03/18/24 decision by 8/02/24) Mr. Werner, of Everclear Pools and Spas, was sworn in as an expert in the field of pool construction. Ms. Berson was sworn in as the homeowner of 17 Coppell Drive. Mr. Werner stated that the property is located in the R-10 zone. The homeowner is seeking to put in a 16’ x 32’ in-ground pool in her backyard. The variances needed for this project are: maximum impervious coverage, pool equipment side yard setback and generator side yard setback. Mr. Werner stated that given the side yard setbacks, they would not be able to place the pool equipment in the pool area, or even in the rear yard as any electrical equipment by law must be 5’ away from the pool area. Because of this, he is proposing to utilize an existing utility area on the left side of the house to place the pool equipment and generator. The a/c units for the house are already located is this area. The pool pump will be a standard pump, which when running is super quiet. The homeowner will remove 240’ of existing sidewalk on the left side of the house as well as 520’ of existing patio. A 500 gallon seepage pit will be added to the back yard. Questions from the board for Mr. Werner: Mr. Cytryn questioned where the extra impervious coverage is coming from if the homeowner is removing the existing sidewalk and patio. Mr. Werner replied the extra impervious coverage is because of the concrete pads for the pool equipment and generator, the pool and the pool coping. Mr. Cytryn questioned where the seepage pit will be collecting runoff from. Mr. Werner responded the seepage pit will collect the drainage from the grass around the pool area. He also stated that the roof leaders can also be tied into the drainage pit by the landscaper to mitigate the storm water run-off from the roof of the house. Mr. Hals questioned what the proposed fence will be made of. Ms. Berson stated it will be 6’ in height and will be a solid fence made of vinyl. Mr. Hals stated the solid fence will help block the equipment from the neighbors view, as well as lessen the noise from the pool pump and generator. He also stated that the plans show the patio will be expanded to the rear left hand corner of the house, which will add 398 SF. He questioned why it was testified there would be no patio. Mr. Werner apologized for his mistake and agreed there would be a patio, but also reiterated that the property owner is removing part of the existing patio as well as the sidewalk along the side of the house. Questions from the public for Mr. Werner: Neighbors Mr. Abraham and Mr. Joo questioned if their properties will get more run-off due to the fact that the seepage pit is being placed on the east side of the pool and not the west side, since the slope runs from east to west. Mr. Werner explained the seepage pit will work the same no matter where it is placed because it is placed at the same depth. He also stated that although the pool does count towards impervious coverage it also acts as a catch basin, since the water line is 4” below the bottom of the coping. Mr. Abraham questioned the proposed retaining wall. Ms. Berson stated the retaining wall is being built to help level out the ground and to retain dirt from her property going onto his property. Mr. Hals was sworn in as the Board Engineer. He stated the three variances that are being sought. He also proposed that if the board approves the application they should add as conditions of approval that the roof leaders be connected to the seepage pit and that they install yard drains around the patio that tie into the seepage pit. Both of these items have been brought up in testimony, but are not on the submitted plans. Ms. Berson stated she agreed to the two conditions. Mr. Hals stated that during a rain storm the pool will capture rainwater but will generally need to be drained afterwards. It is common that the water is drained into the seepage pit. Questions from the board for Mr. Hals: None Questions from the public for Mr. Hals: Mr. Joo, of 60 Creston Ave., questioned if the seepage pit will help with the runoff into his backyard. Mr. Hals replied in his opinion it will be a benefit to his property, but it will not make the problem go away completely. Mr. Kominsky questioned if the neighbors, who are already having water issues, could add their own seepage pits to help with the ponding of water. Mr. Hals stated they could install seepage pits on their properties, but he doesn’t know the specifics as to what is causing the ponding in the first place. They could have soil conditions that do not allow water to percolate in the ground. Comments from the public: Mr. Abraham of 15 Coppell Drive, was sworn. He explained the he and another neighbor get ponding from rain water run off that is coming from Creston and Coppell. Motion by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Ms. Toro to move to executive session. Ms. Toro has mixed feelings because of the existing ponding of water in the neighbor’s yards. Mr. Cytryn would support the application. He feels the seepage pit that will be installed will help with the ponding in the neighbor’s properties. The pool will also collect a certain amount of rain water which will then be emptied into the seepage pit. Dr. Paskhover feels the applicant is being considerate to the neighbors by installing the seepage pit and scaling down on the existing patio size. He would support the application. Motion by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Dr. Paskhover to approve the application on the condition that the roof leaders and ground drains are tied into the seepage pit, and a 6’ solid fence will be installed to hide the equipment. In Favor Opposed Mr. Cytryn Dr. Paskhover Ms. Toro Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 3-1 ADJOURNMENT: As there was no further business to come before the Board, a motion was made by Ms. Toro and seconded by Mr. Cytryn to adjourn the public meeting. A voice vote carried the motion, the meeting adjourned at 8:55 pm. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Peterson Board Secretary