Board of Adjustment

Approved Minutes 01/06/25 Tenafly Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting December 2, 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, 2024.” ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Brensilber, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Cytryn, Mr. Friedman, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Toro, Ms. Farkas, Mr. Kominsky Absent: Dr. Paskhover Also Present: Mr. Zenn, Mr. Vander Valk, Mr. Capizzi, Mr. Tuvel, Mr. Adler, Mr. Rapaport, Mr. Menon, Mr. Hubschman, Mr. & Mrs. Muallem, Mr. & Mrs. Kasindorf APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of November 4, 2024 A motion was made by Mr. Friedman and seconded by Ms. Farkas to approve the minutes for November 4, 2024. A voice vote carried the motion. All were in favor; none were opposed. COMMUNICATION: 2025 Meeting Schedule A Motion was made by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Friedman to accept the 2025 meeting schedule. All were in favor; none were opposed. A notice of the schedule will be sent to the appropriate papers. A copy will be posted in the lobby of Borough Hall, and filed with the Borough Clerk. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: No unfinished business. NEW BUSINESS: Sasson Muallem, 128 Hickory Avenue ZB-2024-5 (This application was heard at the Sept. 16, 2024 and Nov. 4, 2024 meetings. The application is being voted on at tonight’s meeting) New Proposal is to construct a new one family dwelling. 1.) Minimum front yard setback (Cortlandt Place) – 25’ minimum required, 8.6” existing and 14.8’ proposed. 2.) Maximum FAR – 37.5% maximum allowed, 39.6% proposed. 3.) Minimum side yard setback for generator – 10’ minimum, 6.5’ proposed (Received 06/13/2024 Decision by 11/06/2024) Mr. Capizzi the attorney for the applicant summarized the application. He stated the application was originally heard at the September 16, 2024 meeting where a new two family dwelling with a one car garage was proposed. A continuance was granted at the September meeting to allow the applicant the opportunity to revise the plans. The application was next heard at the November 4th meeting, where the applicant proposed a new one family dwelling. Board members that were not present at either or both of the two meetings have watched the recordings of the missed meeting(s) and have signed certifications stating so. This now makes them eligible to vote on the application tonight. Motion by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Brensilber to move to Executive session. Mr. Cytryn stated Mr. Raparport did an excellent job on the plans and feels the applicant listened to the board’s concerns from the September meeting when revising the plans. Mr. Friedman agreed but still had concerns that new construction was requesting a FAR variance. Mr. Lieberman felt that it is a narrow lot and any construction done on the property would require variance relief. He felt they were being reasonable with their request. Motion by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Lieberman to approve the application. In Favor Opposed Mr. Cytryn Mr. Brensilber Mr. Lieberman Mr. Friedman Mr. Callahan Ms. Farkas Mr. Kominsky Roll Call Vote: Motion approved 5-2 Henry & Cindy Kasindorf, 83 Woodland Street ZB-2024-08 2 Story extension to existing single family house.  1.) Minimum side yard setback 20’ required – 10.4’ proposed 2.) Combined side yard setback 27% required – 22.4% proposed 3.) Maximum impervious coverage 25% maximum – 35.94% proposed; 33.83% existing 4.) Front yard driveway coverage – 30% maximum -33.86% proposed; 38.09% existing (Received 07/23/2024 Decision by 01/16/2025) Mr. Tuvel, the attorney for the applicant of 83 Woodland St., stated the project is being necessitated due to the applicant suffering from severe flooding and loss of property over the last three to four years. They had some drainage problems on the property for some time that they have tried to rectify, none of the attempts have been successful. The flooding is due to the fact that the conveyance system from Englewood Cliffs, which comes into Tenafly, and is to the east of their property, is substandard. The applicant is proposing to raise the grade of the driveway on the southern end of the property. The driveway is a low point of the property, which becomes a ponding area for flooding. They are proposing to remove their existing three car garage and relocate it to a proposed addition to the south side of the property, which requires a side yard variance for part of the structure. They are still compliant with FAR and building coverage. Mr. Adler was sworn in as an expert in the field of Architecture. He displayed a google aerial view of the property, which was marked as exhibit A1, to orientate everyone where the property is located. Next he showed a picture of the dwelling on a sunny day, showing the three car garage that is at basement level. This was marked as exhibit A2. He explained that because the garage is at basement level the driveway slopes down to the garage from the street. He stated that above the garage is the great room of the house. The next group of photos were marked as exhibit A3. These were various photos from Hurricane Ida up to a regular rain storm event that occurred in August of 2024. The photos show water a foot or more high on the garage doors and inside photos showing the water level in the garage and finished area of the basement. Mr. Adler went on to present architectural plans dated 6/24/24, which were marked as exhibit A4. The plans were marked with a red line showing the property line, and two setback lines marked at 10’ and 20’. He stated they plan to remove the existing garage doors and infill the openings with concrete. They will also provide adequate waterproofing. Over the filled in doorways they are proposing three windows to let sunlight into the now enclosed area of the basement. The enclosed space will either become storage space or additional finished basement area. The proposed addition will be on the south end of the site and will be connected to the existing house. The existing house was built on an angle to the property lines, because of this the house is not perpendicular or parallel to the property lines. They are not able to place the addition within the 20’ required side yard setback. They are asking to be able to build the addition using a 10’ side yard set. He explained that the borough ordinance allows a 10’ side yard setback for accessory structures. He explained the addition is not considered an accessory structure because it will be attached to the house and therefore needs variance relief. In order to not block the view of the three windows of the great room, they are proposing moving the addition back to almost the corner of the existing building. The addition will consist of three front loaded garage bays. The proposed addition will be about half a level below the existing first floor of the home. There will be a mudroom/hallway between the addition and the existing dwelling, with a half a flight of stairs to gain access to the house. There will be additional storage space beyond the left garage bay and a mechanical room and bathroom/changing room behind the middle garage bay. The back corner of the right garage bay will be angled to fit into the 10’ side yard setback. A second floor above the garage is also being proposed. The purpose of the second floor is to complement the existing house. He stated this will make it more pleasing to the neighborhood. There will also be an open uncovered terrace in the rear off the second floor addition. A height variance will be needed for the existing house. This is due to the fact that although nothing is changing with the existing structure, the average grade has changed. Mr. Adler stated that there will be about a 5’ elevation difference between the existing garage and the proposed addition. Questions from the board: Mr. Kominsky questioned why the flooding problem is related to the height variance. Mr. Adler explained that because the driveway slopes down from the street towards the garage the water is pooling there so that area needs to be filled in. The height of the home is based on the average grade and because the addition is being built at a higher elevation than the existing garage, you need to take measurements from all around the perimeter of the house. Because of where the addition is, the average grade will change from what the current average grade is. This creates the roof of the existing house to become non-compliant in height, even though it itself is not physically changing in height. The proposed addition is well below the maximum height allowed. Mr. Kominsky stated the applicant is seeking a variance for impervious coverage and questioned if they could remove some of the existing pavers. He also questioned if decreasing the amount of pavers change the architectural impact of the home. Mr. Tuvel explained what they are doing to mitigate the flooding is to increase the impervious coverage on the site by about 2%. The2% increase will be the proposed addition. The existing property is already non- conforming on impervious coverage. Mr. Adler stated that the reduction of pavers will have no architectural impact on the home. Mr. Brensilber questioned where the driveway will be reduced. Mr. Tuvel explained that Mr. Hubschman will explain that later, but they are removing some pavers on the property and adding more greenspace. Mr. Brensilber question if Mr. Adler reviewed the September review letter from Mr. Hals and asked if he had any comments on it. Mr. Adler stated he did see the letter. He stated he feels Mr. Hals was very clear and explained the conditions of the flooding. Mr. Kominsky questioned why the area in front of the existing garage could not be filled in and still keep the existing garage. Mr. Adler explained the garage is a basement garage. It is only 8’ in height. If they were to fill it in the 5’ they needed to avoid flooding it would only leave a garage that was 3’ in height. Mr. Friedman questioned since the property is already over on impervious coverage, why do you need to add a bathroom/changing room and an extra storage space area to the back of the garage. Mr. Adler stated the homeowner has a backyard with a pool and patio. The extra storage space would be used to store outdoor furniture and pool supplies, while the bathroom/changing room will also make it more convenient for people using the pool. Mr. Cytryn questioned what the difference in elevation will be from the old garage to the proposed addition. Mr. Adler stated it would be about a 5’ difference. Mr. Cytryn questioned if there was any way to design a garage on the property that did not need variance relief? Mr. Tuvel stated that the proposed garage if not attached would conform in the location they are proposing at the 10’ side yard setback. The need for the variance is because the new addition is going to be attached to the house which means it needs to have a 20’ setback. Questions from the public: None Mr. Hubschman was sworn in as a professional planner and engineer. He stated he is very familiar with this area of town with its flooding issues and drainage easements. He presented a colorized version of the site plan that was marked as exhibit A-5. He went on to explain that he studied the flooding in the area. He did a report to calculate what exactly comes through. He stated there is a 20’ drainage easement on the right side of the property that has a 24” pipe that picks up about 35 acres of drainage from Englewood Cliffs. The easement continues across the street and ends up draining into the Churchill Nature Preserve which eventually drains into a tributary to the Overpeck. He stated he used a 100 year flood elevation calculation which is based on 8.1 inches of rain within 24 hours, which is what the state requires them to use. He calculated the 100 year flood at an elevation of 402. The existing garage is at an elevation of 398.3. He is proposing to build the new garage 1’ higher than the 100 year flood calculation, at an elevation of 403. This will raise the existing driveway about 5’. They are proposing to remove some of the pavers from the south side of the driveway and replace them with grass, and to also build a wall to the right of where the pavers were. The proposed new garage addition will be 2’ above the center of the street. He stated a drainage improvement was done in 2005 by the previous owner, where an additional pipe was put in along the southerly property line. Although it helped with the flooding, it was still inadequate. The only way to fix the flooding issue on this property, is to raise the grade of the property so the water will run towards the street and then toward the Nature Preserve. They are also proposing to add a seepage pit to mitigate any additional runoff due to the project. Mr. Hubschman stated there is a new Borough Ordinance 35-804.4 ( LDR section #) which discusses the location of existing homes with garages constructed below grade that were in existence prior to June 1, 2024. It states these homes may eliminate the below grade garage without requiring relief from the zoning code, and shall be subject to building and grading permits provided that all provisions are met. The applicants can prove all eight provisions. Questions from the board for Mr. Hubschman: Mr. Cytryn questioned if this will really solve the flooding issue and if so will it cause flooding to neighbors. He also stated that it was testified that other attempts to correct the flooding issue have not worked. He questioned who is attesting that this proposal will actually work. Mr. Tuvel stated that Mr. Hubschman will sign and seal under his license that this proposal will work, as well as Mr. Hals’ office signing off on the project as well. He stated that Mr. Hals’ September review letter states that he feels this proposal is a proper solution. Mr. Hubschman stated the way to solve the problem is to raise the height of the garage. He stated the proposal will work 100%. The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 for a five minute break. The meeting was called back in session at 9:15 Mr. Friedman stated he can understand the need for the addition of the garage itself. What he doesn’t understand is why if the property is already over in impervious coverage, the homeowner needs to have a storage area and bathroom built onto the rear of the garage. He questioned what the impervious coverage would be if just the garage were to be built without the storage and bathroom areas in the back. Mr. Hubschman stated that it be roughly about 275 SF of impervious coverage. He noted that the existing property is already non-conforming in impervious coverage. Mr. Kominsky stated the property has an existing flooding issue and yet they are proposing an increase in impervious coverage. He questioned if the issue could be fixed with just adding more seepage pits to the property. Mr. Hubschman stated they are solving a site specific flooding problem. Correcting the drainage pipe running from Englewood Cliffs would be a regional issue and would involve changing the pipe from Englewood Cliffs to the Churchill Nature Preserve. Mr. Cytryn questioned where the water is coming from and where the water is going to. He questioned if the water is coming in the driveway or from the side of the property. Mr. Tuvel stated the water is flowing from Englewood Cliffs to Tenafly and because of the undersized nature of the pipe and the fact that there is a low point on the applicant’s property the water is overflowing and creating a lake in the driveway. Mr. Hubschman stated it is coming from both the street and from the side of the property. Questions from the public: None Mr. Vander Valk, of Schwanewede Hals & Vince, was sworn in as the Board Engineer. He stated the goal of the project is to remove the existing below grade three car garage that floods and construct a new three car garage on ground that is at a higher elevation. He stated that there really are no negatives to this project. He feels that this will be a great improvement for the homeowner. Questions from the board: Mr. Friedman questioned if the water will harm the house across the street. Mr. Vander Valk stated the amount of water to the house across the street will be minimal. Comments from the public: None At 9:40 Mr. Tuvel requests a ten minute break to speak with his client. The meeting was called back to order at 9:50. Mr. Tuvel stated that after speaking with his client, his client is willing to reduce the proposed increase in net impervious coverage of 893 square feet by 50% to 447 square feet, as a condition of approval. He also stated they will still install the seepage pit on the property and will not reduce its proposed size. Mr. Tuvel stated his client has lived in town for many years and has been dealing with the flooding issue and property loss. He believes the applicant’s request to be reasonable. The benefits of the project are: they are fixing the flooding while also creating an addition that will blend into the existing home; the project will cause no harm to the neighbor’s properties, and the homeowners are willing to reduce the proposed net impervious coverage by 50% (447 sq. ft.). Motion by Mr. Brensilber and seconded by Mr. Cytryn to move to executive session. A voice vote carried the motion, all were in favor none were opposed. Mr. Brensilber stated he would approve the application. He feels they have met the C variance and it is clear they have suffered from flooding. The benefits far outweigh the negatives, and there doesn’t seem to be any negatives to the neighbors. Mr. Friedman was concerned with the overage of impervious coverage. He stated the applicant being willing to reduce the proposed net impervious coverage by 50% helped make his decision. He would support the approval of the application. Motion by Mr. Cytryn and seconded by Mr. Brensilber to approve the application with the stipulation that the homeowners will reduce the proposed net impervious coverage by 50% to 447 square feet. In Favor Opposed Mr. Cytryn Mr. Brensilber Mr. Callahan Ms. Friedman Mr. Lieberman Mr. Toro 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. Cytryn to adjourn the public meeting. A voice vote carried the motion, the meeting adjourned at 10:01 pm. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Peterson Board Secretary