Board of Adjustment

Approved Minutes 11/04/24 Tenafly Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting September 16, 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, Mr. Friedman, Ms. Toro, Ms. Farkas, Mr. Kominsky Absent: Mr. Callahan, Mr. Lieberman, Dr. Paskhover (Recused) Also Present: Mr. Zenn, Mr. Coder, Mr. Hals, Mr. Novak, Mr. Capizzi, Mr. McClellan, Mr. Rappaport, Mr. Pessolano, Mr. Menon, Ms. Ruiz, Mr. & Ms. Muallem, Ms. Shafter, Mr. Avnery, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Nikulen, Ms. Peterson APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of July 1, 2024 A motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Mr. Cytryn to approve the minutes for August 5, 2024, with one correction. A voice vote carried the motion. All were in favor; none were opposed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: No unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS: Sasson Muallem, 128 Hickory Avenue ZB-2024-5 Redevelop property with a new two family residence. 1.) Minimum front yard setback (Hickory Ave) 29.7’ minimum required – 12’ existing and 25’ proposed.  2.) Minimum front yard setback (Cortlandt Place) 25’ minimum required – 8.6’ existing and 15.3’ proposed. 3.) Maximum FAR 37.5% maximum allowed – 44.1% proposed. 4.) Minimum side yard setback for generator 10’ minimum required – 6.5’ proposed. 5.) Maximum driveway opening at street 20’ maximum allowed – 23.6’ existing and 26’ proposed. 6.) Garage for each unit required – garage for one unit proposed. 7.) Driveway parking space size 10’ x 18’ required – 8.6’ x 17.5’ proposed. (Received 6/13/2024 decision by 11/6/2024) Mr. Capizzi, the lawyer for the applicant summarized the application. He stated the homeowner is proposing to construct a two family dwelling at 128 Hickory Ave, which is a corner lot. The property is located in the R75 zone. The lot is undersized. He stated there is an existing non- conforming two family dwelling on the lot. Mr. Rappaport was sworn in as an expert in the field of architecture. He presented exhibit A1 taken from google earth. Exhibit A1 showed a picture of the intersection of Cortlandt Place and Hickory Ave., showing the existing non-conforming two family dwelling. Exhibit A2 showed a view of the house from Cortlandt Place showing the location of the detached garage. Mr. Rappaport also present exhibit A3, which was a colorized survey showing the existing house. He also showed a drawing showing the zoning requirements and what is being proposed, this was marked as exhibit A4. Mr. Rappaport next displayed his architectural plans. He explained the home will be a two unit dwelling. Unit A will be the larger unit and will consist of five bedrooms. The applicant and his family plan to live in this unit. Unit B will be a smaller one bedroom unit that the applicant plans to rent for additional income. The exterior of the house will be hardi-plank on the lower left front, with cement board on the top half of the house. The bottom right hand side will be cultured stone. Mr. Rappaport stated the two units will share one driveway off of Cortland Place. They are proposing a one car garage for unit A and a driveway that will be wide enough to allow one parking space for unit B and two spaces for unit A. He stated the proposed plans will exceed the FAR by 40 sq. ft. Questions for Mr. Rappaport from the board: Mr. Friedman questioned if each unit is required to have a garage and whether they are proposing parking for three or four cars. Mr. Rappaport replied there will be parking for four cars. Unit A will have the garage and two parking spots and unit B will have one parking spot. The town requires a garage for each unit but the property does not allow for a second garage because the units would be too small. There was discussion and clarification regarding a garage credit going towards the FAR. Mr. Novak, the Board Planner, questioned if the open area in the basement that is proposed on the rental unit side can be turned into a bedroom. Mr. Rappaport stated that is not how he intends the space to be used. It is intended to be a recreational space or playroom. He can’t control how a homeowner uses the space. The larger windows are proposed to let in light, but he can make the windows smaller so they do not meet code to allow a bedroom in the basement. Questions for Mr. Rappaport from the public: none Mr. McClellan was sworn in as an expert in civil engineering. He presented a site plan dated March 4, 2024, which was last revised May 23, 2024. He stated that the proposed plans will be improving the existing front yard setbacks on Hickory and Cortlandt, as well as the existing side yard setback. They are also seeking additional variances for the a/c units in the side yard, which is 6.5’ where 10’ is required, as well as the other variances that are being requested. He stated they are proposing Arborvitae on the east part of the property to provide buffering from the dwelling as well as the a/c units and generator. They are also proposing a 6’ fence along the back of the property transitioning down to a 4’ fence once it gets even to the corner of the house where it becomes the front yard. The fence would be a white vinyl fence. Mr. McClellan stated the proposed plans are for three parking spaces and a garage. The driveway does not conform in length or width. He further stated that if the cars were pulled right up to the house they would not overhang into the right of way. There are no sidewalks on Cortlandt Place to be obstructed if the cars were not pulled up all the way. He stated that this is still an improvement on the existing condition, as the existing driveway is only 15’ long and the proposed driveway will be 17.5’. Mr. McClellan stated the reason that unit B’s driveway can’t be off of Hickory Ave is because it would have to be placed 50’ from the intersection and the property is only 50’ wide. The existing house has gutters that drain directly into the ground. The new dwelling will have a 1,000 gal seepage pit that will capture the rain water runoff. Questions for Mr. McClellan from the board: Mr. Kominsky questioned if the a/c units and generator were going to be placed closer to the street so as not to encroach on the neighbor. Mr. McClellan stated they are being proposed for the side yard. The neighbor’s house is about 24.2’ from the property line, and they are proposing the a/c units and generator be placed 6.5’ from the property line so the will be about 30.5’ away from the neighbor’s house. Mr. Kominsky asked if there will be one a/c per unit. Mr. McClellan replied unit B will have one a/c unit and the unit A will have two a/c units. There will be only one generator that will power unit A only. Questions for Mr. McClellan from the public: None Mr. Pessolano was sworn in as an expert in the field of professional planning. He displayed an eleven page exhibit that was labeled A-5 that consisted of maps and ground photos that were taken by Mr. Pessolano. He stated he feels the site is fully capable of a two family dwelling and there will be adequate parking at the site. He feels the side yards can accommodate the additional FAR. He stated that 82% of the dwellings in this neighborhood are two family dwellings. He believes the proposed plans will provide for adequate light, air and space for the neighboring homes. Mr. Friedman questioned if the houses that were shown in the exhibit of other two family houses in the neighborhood are on larger lots than the subject property. Mr. Pessolano agreed that most were on larger lots. Mr. Novak questioned if the surrounding two family dwellings square footage were conforming. Mr. Pessolano stated the proposed house is proportionate with the other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Pessolano went on to testify that he believes all the setbacks are within the realm of the C1 hardship, due to the narrowness of the property and also the fact that it is a corner lot.. With regards to the proposal for a one car garage, where two are required, and the driveway being narrower and shorter then is required, he believes they could be authorized pursuant to the C2 weighing analysis or the flexible C. He feels this will be an overall beneficial project, and there is no substantial detriment of the D4 from the granting of either the C1 relief or C2 items that he detailed in his testimony. The proposed plan is dealing with a permitted use and improved setbacks. He concluded by stating the site can accommodate a dwelling of the size that is being proposed, with no substantial detriments. The project improves harmony in the neighborhood as to use and setback patterns. Questions for Mr. Pessolano from the board: Mr. Cytryn questioned about pedestrian and vehicular safety regarding the shortness and narrowness of the driveway as well as concerns with the street scape. Mr. Pessolano replied concerning pedestrian and vehicular safety, the proposed driveway will be located in the center of the lot. This is an improvement on where the driveway is currently located, which is off to the side of the property, where it is hidden by vegetation between the subject property and the property to the south. By placing the driveway in the center of the property there is an expectation that pedestrians and drivers will be able to notice each other in a more ready fashion. There are many driveways that exist with stacked parking where one car has to be moved in order for another car to get out of the garage. Currently there is large vegetation on the corner of the property at the intersection of Hickory and Cortlandt that he believes poses more of a safety risk. He also stated that he does not believe there is a large volume of traffic on Cortllandt. Mr. Friedman questioned about the width of the driveway spaces. It is usually 10’ per car and the proposed plans are for three cars to fit in a 17.5’ space. Mr. Pessolano replied he believes it is adequate space to fit three cars. The RSIS requirement for residential parking is 9’ and that takes into account the ability to be able open the car doors. Cars are roughly 7.5’ in width as a standard. He feels 10’ is a luxury here that they do not have. Mr. Friedman state that the board is getting more and more applications to widen driveways and garages due to the fact that cars are getting bigger. Mr. Friedman questioned how proposing a setback on Hickory of 25’ where 29.7’ is required, is not a violation of the street scape. Mr. Pessolano stated that in order for the plan to conform in rear yard setback, a front yard setback variance is needed. He also stated it is an improvement over the existing condition. Mr. Friedman questioned if the house was not as large the setback would conform and there might not be a need for FAR. Mr. Pessolano stated that is true with every application, but that would be impractical for this applicant’s purposes of providing a home for themselves along with a rental unit for extra income. Questions for Mr. Pessolano from the Public: None Mr. Hals was sworn in as the board engineer. He went over the variances the applicant is seeking. He stated that generally all the two family dwellings that exist in the neighborhood are the same size. They also have a garage for each unit. He does not see that the proposal is offering a better planning alternative. He feels the proposed A/C units and generator are closer to the property line and will be a detriment to the neighbor on the east. Mr. Kominsky ask Mr. Hals to explain FAR to the public. Questions for Mr. Hals from the board: Mr. Cytryn asked if there is adequate space for the generator to be placed where they are proposing it. Mr. Hals stated that the generator will have to meet other building code requirements first. If they are proposing it to be at a setback of 6.5’ it might not go in that exact location but it will be somewhere along that 6.5’ setback. Questions for Mr. Hals from the public: None Mr. Novak was sworn in as an expert in planning for the board. He stated that he submitted a memorandum that was date September 9, 2024 for the boards review. He reviewed the findings in his memo. He stated the Borough has a requirement for each unit to have a garage as well as a requirement for the width and length of the driveway which the applicant is deficient on. Questions from the board for Mr. Novak: None Questions from the public for Mr. Novak: None Comments from the public: Mr. Avnery was sworn in a resident of 123 Hickory Ave. He feels the new house will make an improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Cohen was sworn in as the homeowner of 66-68 Cortlandt Place. He wishes if the applicant would consider placing an additional seepage tank on the North end of the property to help protect his property as well as their own. He believes there is a hardship with this property, and feels the proposed house will be much better than what is there now. Ms. Grandos was sworn in as a resident of 45 Newcomb Rd. She is in favor of the proposed house. Mr. Shafer was sworn in as a resident of 121 Hickory Avenue. He feels that anything that is built there will be an improvement, and is in favor of the application. Mr. Nikulin was sworn in as a resident of 11 Cortlandt Place. He understands the difficulty of improving on an undersized lot. He is in favor of the application. The meeting was recessed at 9:51 pm for a short break and reconvened at 10:00 pm. Mr. Capizzi stated that after speaking with his client he would like to ask the board to carry the application to a future date. Mr. Kominsky stated that there are six board members present and the applicant would need five affirmative votes for the application to be approved. A motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Mr. Cytryn to allow the applicant the continuance to provide them time to revise their application. The application will be heard at the November 4, 2024 meeting without notice or at a later date, with notice, if more time is needed by the applicant. In favor: Mr. Friedman, Mr. Cytryn, Ms. Toro, Ms. Farkas, Mr. Kominsky Opposed: Mr. Brensilber ADJOURNMENT: As there was no further business to come before the Board, a motion was made by Mr. Brensilber and seconded by Mr. Cytryn to adjourn the public meeting. A voice vote carried the motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:07 pm. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Peterson Board Secretary