Board of Adjustment

Approved Minutes 8/5/2024 Tenafly Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting July 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. Cytryn*, M. Friedman, Dr. Paskhover, Ms. Toro, Mr. Kominsky Absent: Mr. Callahan, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Farkas Also Present: Mr. Zenn, Mr. Hals, Mr. Coder, Mr. Menon, Ms. Peterson, Mr. Gole, Mrs. Gole, Mr. Shimm, Ms. Zaks, Mr. Taffuri APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of June 3, 2024 A motion was made by Ms. Toro and seconded by Dr. Paskhover to approve the minutes for June 3, 2024. A voice vote carried the motion. All were in favor; none were opposed. UNFINISHED 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 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) A motion was made by Dr. Paskhover and seconded by Ms. Toro to approve the resolution.  In Favor Opposed Dr. Paskhover Ms. Toro Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved, 3-0 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 08/02/24) A motion was made by Dr. Paskhover and seconded by Ms. Toro to approve the resolution. In Favor Opposed Dr. Paskhover Ms. Toro Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 2-0 NEW BUSINESS: Abe & Janet Gole, 9 Huguenot Court, ZB-2024-03 Swimming pool and patio were installed in 2022. 15’ setback from rear lot line required for pool equipment – pool equipment was installed 11’ from the rear lot line. 3,930 SF impervious coverage permitted – 4,231.2 SF impervious coverage constructed. (Received 02/09/24 decision by 09/03/24) Mr. and Mrs. Gole were sworn in as the homeowners of 9 Huguenot Court. Mrs. Gole stated that back in 2022 they submitted plans for an in-ground pool to the building department, which were approved. The pool equipment was installed 11’ from the rear lot line where 15’ is required. They are also over in impervious coverage because of pavers and a patio that were installed do to health reasons and concerns with walking in the grass. Mrs. Gole stated that where the pool equipment is now is far away from the neighbors, as the property behind her is a deep property and the house for that property is closer to the street. She would not be able to move the equipment closer to the pool as there is a law on how close the electrical equipment can be to the pool. The only other option is to move it to the side yard, which would actually be closer to her side yard neighbors than where it is now. Mr. Gole stated that the property is trapezoidal shaped and the house is on an angle on the property. He believes that because of this the installers might have measured wrong when installing the equipment. He stated that he does not believe that they have 15’ on the side yard to install the equipment on the side yard. Mr. Kominsky ask what it would take to get the impervious coverage in compliance with the town. Mrs. Gole stated that they could remove some of the pavers. Mr. Gole stated that he did not believe that pavers counted towards impervious coverage, he believes they might have to remove some of the concrete around the pool. Mrs. Gole stated that they have a lot of grass in their backyard even with the pavers and patio. *Mr. Cytryn joined the meeting at 7:52. He will not be able to vote on the application for 9 Huguenot Court, although he is allowed to ask questions. He will be able to vote on the application for 45 Mayflower Drive. Questions from the Board for Mr. and Mrs. Gole: Mr. Friedman questioned what the distance is that the pool equipment needed to be away from the pool. Mrs. Gole stated she is not certain but thinks it might be 5’. Mr. Zenn asked if the overage in the impervious coverage was due to an error by pool contractor. Mrs. Gole stated that she asked the concrete layer that was working for the pool installer if the patio could be mad a little bigger. She stated that he told her he could make it larger as the town wouldn’t complain if the coverage was a little over. Mr. Gole stated the original plans that were submitted were for a 3’ concrete border to be laid around the pool. After talking with the concrete contractor he made the patio on the north side larger. Mr. Gole stated he believes it is 6’or 7’ to fit lounge chairs. Dr. Paskhover questioned if there was a seepage pit installed when the pool was installed. Mr. Gole stated they were informed by the pool company about the height it was supposed to be and he believes that was met. As they excavated there was some ponding of water on the side of Sussex Rd. The landscaper came in and filled in the land and they have not had any ponding issues since then. Questions from the public for Mr. & Mrs. Gole: None Mr. Hals was sworn in as the Board Engineer. He stated pool equipment must be 6’ away from the pool due to the electrical components. The plans did propose 15’ from the rear property line and 20’ form the side property line. The property line is angled. If the property was not staked out when the pool equipment was installed, the installers could have misaligned the pool equipment with the fence. The pool equipment area is also larger on the survey than what was shown on the construction plans. The plans that were originally submitted did show a 3’ concrete pad around the perimeter of the pool. He stated the homeowners expanded the concrete on the right hand side from 3’ to 11’. Mr. Hals stated the impervious coverage figure that is on the plans is incorrect. He believes the planter box and other items were included in the impervious coverage calculation. The town does not include these items in the impervious coverage. He stated his calculation is a smaller number than what is on the survey because of this. The survey shows 4231 SF where his calculations show the impervious coverage to be 4100 SF. Questions for Mr. Hals from the Board: Mr. Friedman questioned if the pavers counted towards impervious coverage. Mr. Hals stated stone is considered impervious. If it is covering the land, it is considered impervious coverage. Impervious is not whether water can go through it or not, impervious is whether it is covering the land. Mr. Friedman questioned if it is possible to move the pool equipment to meet the 15’ requirement. Mr. Hals stated the only place the pool equipment could have possibly been placed is where the expanded concrete sitting area is. Mr. Kominsky questioned if the pool is the size that was set forth in the plans. Mr. Hals stated all the other improvements are exactly what was shown on the plans. Questions from the public for Mr. Hals: None Comments from the public: Mr. Weingartner of 29 Sussex Rd was sworn in. He stated rain water is being directed to his property. He feels this is something that should be considered by the board. Mr. Shimm of 37 Sussex Rd was sworn in. He stated he wished the neighbors would have been informed that a pool was going to be constructed, as it impacts the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. Motion by Dr. Paskhover and seconded by Mr. Friedman to move to executive session. A voice vote carried the motion all were in favor none were opposed. Mr. Brensilber feels that if the current location is the only place for the pool equipment, the homeowner should find a way to block it from view by using a fence or plantings. He also believes that some of the pavers and stones can be removed by the homeowner to make the impervious coverage conforming. Dr. Paskhover is concerned that the neighbors are getting rain water runoff on their property. Mr. Brensilber suggested that each variance be voted on separately. Ms. Toro agrees they should be voted on separately and does not believe the burden of proof has been met for the impervious coverage. Mr. Zenn questioned if drainage plans were needed. Mr. Hals stated this was below a certain threshold, so no drainage plans were needed. Motion by Mr. Brensilber and seconded by Dr. Paskhover to approve the placement of the pool equipment subject to the homeowner providing screening, with fencing or plantings, fully around the equipment. In Favor Opposed Mr. Brensilber Dr. Paskhover Mr. Friedman Ms. Toro Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 5-0 Motion by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Ms. Toro to deny the application for impervious coverage. In Favor Opposed Mr. Friedman Ms. Toro Mr. Brensilber Dr. Paskhover Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 4-1 Mary Zaks, 45 Mayflower Drive ZB-2024-06 Rear addition allowing for the installation of an elevator. 25% impervious coverage permitted – 32.9% existing and 33.27% proposed (Received 04/26/24 decision by 09/19/24) Mr. Taffuri, who is representing the homeowner, was sworn in as an expert in the field of building contracting. He stated the existing property is nonconforming in impervious coverage. The homeowner, due to her age, would like to have an elevator installed in the house to help her get to the second floor of her house. The application is to allow the construction of a 99SF elevator shaft to be built in the back of the home. He stated the home is conforming in everything but the impervious coverage. 25% is permitted, 32.9% is existing and he is proposing 33.27%. This equates to about .25% over what is already existing. The topography of the property is such that there will be no rain water runoff issues as her property sits lower than the street and the properties surrounding her. The pool and patio were built back in the 70’s. Questions from the Board for Mr. Taffuri: Mr. Cytryn asked if the home was in compliance at the time it was built. Mr. Taffuri stated he did not know. Mr. Friedman questioned if it was possible to remove the dog leg concrete section of patio to the left of the pool, as it looks like it is the same size as the proposed addition. He also questioned about a slate patio that was a few steps down from the elevated patio. Mr. Taffuri stated that the patio is an elevated surface that is not in contact with the ground. He feels structurally it would not be simple to remove the pool patio. He stated that he is sure that if the homeowner had to remove 99SF of the slate patio in order to get approval for the project she would remove it. She would prefer to keep it as she uses it when she has family over. The patio area is really the only useable area of the yard as the rest of the yard is unusable due to the change in grade. Mr. Zenn questioned why the elevator shaft is 99 SF but the impervious coverage is increasing by 145 SF. Mr. Taffuri stated he believes there was an error in the calculations. The correct increase in impervious coverage should be 99 SF. There is nothing else that is being built other than the elevator shaft. Questions from the public for Mr. Taffuri: None Mr. Hals was sworn in as the Board Engineer. He stated it is a very small addition. It is specifically for the elevator. He inspected the property and there is no other impervious coverage that can be easily removed to make up the difference of the 99 SF proposed increase. He stated it is a benefit to the community to keep a resident in town. There is really no impact to the development of the house. Questions from the Board for Mr. Hals: None Questions from the Public for Mr. Hals: None Motion by Mr. Brensilber and seconded by Mr. Friedman to move to executive session. Mr. Cytryn feels it is a reasonable ask and supports the application Mr. Kominsky stated it is a benefit as the house will be ADA compliant. Mr. Friedman stated that Mr. Hals covered his concern regarding possibly removing some of the existing patio to make up for the extra 99 SF of impervious coverage. Motion by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Friedman to approve the application.  In Favor Opposed Mr. Cytryn Mr. Friedman Mr. Brensilber Dr. Paskhover 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. Brensilber and seconded by Mr. Friedman to adjourn the public meeting. A voice vote carried the motion, the meeting adjourned at 8:49 pm. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Peterson Board Secretary