Zoning Board

BOROUGH OF WESTWOOD ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 3, 2024 APPROVED 7/1/24 1. OPENING OF THE MEETING: The meeting was called to order at 8:00 pm at the Westwood Municipal Complex, 101 Washington Avenue, Westwood, NJ. Open Public Meetings Law Statement: This meeting, which conforms with the Open Public Meetings Law, Chapter 231, Public Laws of 1975, is a Regular Meeting of the Westwood Zoning Board of Adjustment. Notices have been filed with our local official newspapers and posted on the municipal bulletin board. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: William Martin, Chairman Gary Conkling Peter Grefrath Matthew Ceplo Michael O’Rourke Frank Mantz Jim Hodges, Alt #1 Christine Blaney, Alt #2 ALSO PRESENT: Thomas Randall, Esq., Board Attorney Steve Lydon, PP, Burgis Associates, Board Planner John G. Yakimik, PE, Boswell Engineering Board Engineer ABSENT: Eric Oakes, Vice Chairman (excused absence) Mr. Randall swore in new member, Christine Blaney, Alt #2. 4. MINUTES: The Minutes of the 5/6/24 meeting were approved on motion made by Gary Conkling seconded by Peter Grefrath and carried unanimously. (WWZB 6/3/24 Minutes) 5. CORRESPONDENCE: None 6. VOUCHERS: None - The Chairman commented on the change in how vouchers are currently handled. Even if the Board is not approving the vouchers, it should receive copies. Mr. Randall was requested to make such request to the Governing Body, according to the MLUL. 7. RESOLUTIONS: 1. ZB-240100 - Gutierrez, 107 Kaufman Drive - Bulk variances for a 2-Story Rear Addition, Portico, Pool, and Deck – Not ready; carried to 7/1/24; 8. PENDING NEW BUSINESS: (Carried to 7/1/24) 1. ZB-240102 - Mittelhammer, 124 West End- Bulk Variances for an addition; 2. ZB-240103 - Westwood Investments, LLC, 49 Fairview Avenue- Minor Subdivision with bulk variances - Application has been submitted to Bergen County Planning; 9. VARIANCES, SUBDIVISIONS AND/OR SITE PLANS, APPEALS AND INTERPRETATIONS: The Board Professionals were sworn in by the Board Attorney, Thomas Randall, Esq. 1. ZB-2220 – Carrier, 27 Seventh - Height variance for an accessory structure – Not heard; Applicants appeared; Carried to 7/1/24 with no new notice required and time extension granted. Applicants to submit their new, correct plan in advance. 2. ZB-2302 - Abbott, 169 Carver - Vacant Land - D-1 Use, C- variances, and Site plan to construct a four (4) unit townhouse structure (now three units proposed) – Harold Cook Esq. represented the applicant and reviewed from the prior meeting, wherein they let off with the Board Planner’s testimony. Angelo Onello, Licensed Engineer, was also present. Mr. Cook advised they have their Planner, David Spatz present. He would address Mr. Lydon's report that they received and give his report and summary. Mr. Yakimak, Board Engineer, gave updated comments. Shortly after the last hearing, he heard from a member of the public, Warren Saunders, who lives within 200', requesting to meet and discuss the application. He met with Mr. Saunders at Boswell Engineering for an hour, and he expressed concerns about sight distance, landscaping and other items. Mr. Saunders requested a subsequent meeting regarding drainage, which was also discussed. 2 (WWZB 6/3/24 Minutes) Chairman Martin commented the Board did not know about these meetings until a few days ago and thought it prudent to bring this up. Mr. Saunders brought in a report by Johnson Soils dated July 17, 2023 on his own property. Mr. Cook acknowledged they could not use Johnson Soils because the neighbor did. Mr. Yakimak reviewed it, and noted perhaps certain items could be conditions of any approval. He would also advise the Board as to his own findings and review before a vote is taken. It was agreed that Mr. Cook would sum up after the interested parties at the end. David Spatz, applicant’s licensed NJ Professional Planner, continued his testimony under oath and in response to Mr. Lydon’s summary. He received Mr. Lydon's report ten days before the meeting, but did not have time to submit a written report ten days prior. Mr. Spatz testified reviewing his prior testimony. What they are proposing does meet a number of the Goals and Objectives of the Master Plan, which he listed and read with the Policy Statements: Goal 1 - they are compatible and meet the requirements for residential townhouse development, and it fits in with this area. Goal 2 - detailed planting and tree replacement plans have been approved by the Shade Tree Commission. Goal 3 - Buffering and screening goals have been met. It is compatible with lower density residential uses. This is a well-transitioned use bordering the commercial industrial use. He did not notice Mr. Lydon making mention of this. A lower density residential use/moderate density residential use is an appropriate buffer and a perfect use. It would be hard-pressed to put a single-family development next to the commercial use. Mr. Cook referred to Mr. Lydon's report on page seven as to special reasons under Purpose A. Mr. Spatz did not disagree. The Board reviews the purposes of zoning and those standards in their determination of whether to grant the variance or not. Goal 4 - Their development meets this goal of density of 10.3 units per acre. If they were in a zone that permits townhouses, that would be conforming. The proposed use is more compatible with the residential uses to the north, as opposed to the commercial uses to the south. They acknowledge they are looking for a use variance, but the development meets the goal and is appropriate. Goal 14 - speaks about consistency with architectural design and size. They conform with this goal. They do not meet the townhouse standards per Mr. Lydon's report on page six. In summary, they meet the goals and objectives as stated. Mr. Lydon commented sometimes with setbacks it is like horseshoes-sometimes it is shown as pretty close and granted. Mr. Spatz added, the Board must look at the quality of the setbacks. 3 (WWZB 6/3/24 Minutes) Mr. Cook gave supporting comments. Mr. Lydon advised the frontage and depth are nowhere near conforming. This application is a far cry from that. Mr. Spatz felt it is appropriate to compare this with the other properties in the Borough where townhouses are permitted. Mr. Spatz stated the use they are proposing fits in with the surrounding neighborhood and is perfectly designed for this lot. The site is unique in its shape and location. Mr. Ceplo asked when the Borough implements zoning for townhouses, how many units are they talking about. Mr. Spatz stated it is not suitable for single family use, so what they are proposing is the best use of that property vs. industrial use or a parking lot. Their engineer stated it does meet the setback for a single-family home. Mr. Ceplo asked would three townhouses on the same size property fit if it were zoned for townhouses. Mr. Spatz responded the three townhouses would be conforming. The Chairman commented this is a D1 variance, and it is at the very edge of the R1 zone. He inquired of Mr. Spatz if they were proposing a single-family home, which they are not, what is his opinion as a planner. Does it make sense to have a development that addresses both adjacent zones, in between the two zones. Mr. Spatz responded it is appropriate in that it fits in and blends in with the both zones as a transition. It buffers the residential from the commercial, but is residential. They meet the bulk standards of the single-family zone. The Chairman Martin stated they are looking for a three-unit townhouse, and when you look at the C variances, you look at standards that are consistent and fit in with the townhouse’s standards. The crux of the thinking is if you believe the three-unit townhouse in this location creates an appropriate transition, the C variance standards are really subsumed. Mr. Spatz agreed that you would be granting a use variance vs. C variance. The Chairman asked it if protects both zones as a transition, and Mr. Spatz agreed it does. The matter was opened to the public for questions of Mr. Spatz. Jaymee Hodges, 40 Second Ave, Westwood, came forward. He is a resident and Chairman of the Westwood Planning Board, asking questions as a resident. He is curious as to why this townhouse construction is a good transition from single family home district t to industrial. It is not a development since a development is 12 units. Mr. Spatz stated it is residential and provides a buffer. Mr. Hodges asked if he felt this was a better transition from the residential use than a single family or two single family homes on that lot. Mr. Spatz stated two houses require a subdivision. Why, Mr. Hodges asked, is this a better scenario. The lot could have already been sold as a single-family home, built and occupied. Mr. Hodges commented on the engineer's report regarding stormwater 4 (WWZB 6/3/24 Minutes) management and expressed concern about this affecting the wetlands. Mr. Spatz stated there was engineering testimony on this in support. Mr. Hodges has continued concern over this. Mr. Hodges would comment later. There were no further questions of Mr. Spatz from the Board and public. Ross Rivaid, former President of Ringfeder Corp., the building behind this site and owner of this property as a real estate development company, came forward. He gave history of the company and this property, which has remained vacant. There were no questions from the Board. From the public, Mr. Jaeger came forward as neighbor to this property, asked if John Prows was affiliated with him. He was not. Mr. Jaeger asked why it remained empty. Mr. Rivaid quoted statements by others. Mr. Randall and the Chairman advised the other people he was referring to would have to be present to submit these comments. Mr. Jaeger asked the witness if this property was intended as a buffer. Mr. Rivaid said the only answer he could give is they owned it since 1970's. Mr. Saunders asked about wetlands and the NJDEP, and if it was determined as such. This was before Mr. Rivaid's time so he had no information. Mr. O'Rourke asked if the property was under contract, and the answer was yes. There were no further questions. The Board took a recess from 9:20-9:30 pm. The applicant's case was completed, and the matter was opened to the public for statements. The residents were sworn in. Gordon Hampton, 136 Carver Avenue, across the street. He purchased the property in 1979. Bob Verde owned the property and let him put dirt there. Mr. Prows of Ringfeder asked to speak with Mr. Verde, so he contacted him. They all met with the building inspector. The property was for sale in one piece with a buffer zone that could not be built on. He built his own place and Ringfeder built theirs. In the 1980's there was a big storm with water so bad, it was chest-high and washed out all the dirt. Mr. Hampton helped Ringfeder by bringing in dirt with the town's approval. Ringfeder brought in rushed stone. Recently there have been torrential rains back there. Also, traffic flies up and down that street. It is very dangerous. In winter with the ice and snow, he indicated it would be more dangerous and probably have accidents. The Chairman asked for his opinion. He said his opinion is it should not be built. It is not a good thing. Mr. Cook asked if he heard the traffic engineer's testimony. Mr. Hampton said he did, and the property should remain vacant. Fred Collado, Westwood Boulevard, came forward and reiterated Mr. Hampton's comments that nothing should be built there, and it 5 (WWZB 6/3/24 Minutes) should remain as a buffer. They are trying to put too much in this area. It should have stopped as a single family. He has a pump in his basement, and this will exacerbate the flooding in the area. Rudolph Jaeger, neighbor, came forward again and said he heard the traffic engineer’s comments. It is a fairly heavily trafficked, cut-through from Westwood Boulevard. There are a large number of heavy truck vehicles parked on both sides of the street. There is also a fair amount of non-commercial traffic in the neighborhood. Mr. Saunders reviewed the exhibit in detail. He defined Block 2208 as watershed. Warren Saunders came forward and read proofs required for granting of variances, per the Zoning Ordinance and MLUL. He was confused about the negative criteria. If a structure is not permitted can the Zoning Board grant approval, he asked. Mr. Lydon addressed the question in detail, per the Chairman. The Board does have the authority and jurisdiction in a D1 use variance, if five members approve it. Chairman Martin directed him to the powers section of the Zoning Board and read from it. He was concerned with the negative environmental impact this project would have and submitted documentation. The exhibit was marked (Objector) O1. Details of the wetlands and flooding were described. The report of Johnson Soils, dated 7/17/23, was marked exhibit O4. Mr. Saunder's property was TP-1, 93 Westwood Boulevard. Test pits were done on his property and 87 Westwood Boulevard. There is a drainage problem on Westwood Boulevard. This project will exacerbate the situation. The Chairman stated the applicant's proposal cannot create any additional runoff. The Chairman asked Mr. Yakimak, who indicated there are thinking the applicant can do certain things to the stormwater management system. Dr. Gonzalez of his office has the report. They are not there yet as far as the applicant satisfying his office as to this. Additional testing may be required. They are extremely strict in applying the stormwater standards. There will be a lot of back and forth. If it could not be satisfied, applicants would have to come back to the Board. The Chairman stated the applicant can address this. Another concern of Mr. Saunder's was the trees on his property, and he had another handout. Chapter 195-166 deals with excessive shading. The project will shade all of his trees, and he will suffer property damage. Another concern is parking and driveway configurations. He reviewed the traffic section of the Zoning, Chapter 195-162. Mr. Lydon noted they are designed standards. Mr. Saunders discussed extensive details of traffic issues and issues with sight distances and requirements. He saw problems with the driveways. Mr. Saunders gave his final statement. The proposal impairs the intent and 6 (WWZB 6/3/24 Minutes) purpose of the zoning ordinance. He provided an extensive opinion and statements against the application, quoting the Master Plan, Zoning Code and MLUL. Questions of Mr. Saunders followed. Mr. Cook asked about O2, that they are existing conditions, not what the applicant proposes. Mr. Saunders agreed. What applicant proposes is on his own drawings submitted. He agreed he is not a professional planner or engineer, and is a layman. Jaymee Hodges came forward and commented as Chairman of the Planning Board, who takes the Master Plan very seriously. They have reviewed the Master Plan twice in the last ten years, and it is kept current. Adjustments are made when necessary. Applicants are able to use this as a guideline. There was nothing further, and the matter was closed to interested parties. Since it was now 11:00 pm, the matter was carried to the 7/1/24 meeting, with no notice required and any time extension granted. Mr. Cook will give a summation at that time, followed by Board discussion and a vote. 3. ZB-24-0101 - Uhl- 49 Lincoln Ave. - Bulk Variances for an addition and dormer – Withdrawn by applicant; 4. ZB-23-0101 - 387 Roslyn LLC, 358 Kinderkamack Road - Add a second residential unit on the second floor. D1-Use Variance, Bulk Variances, Site Plan approval with a parking variance; Carried to 7/1/14 at request of applicant; 10. DISCUSSION: None 11. ADJOURNMENT – On motions, made seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm. Respectfully submitted, Mary R. Verducci, Zoning Board Secretary 7