Zoning Board

BOROUGH OF WESTWOOD ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 9, 2024 APPROVED 10/7/24 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 Eric Oakes, Vice 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: None 4. MINUTES: The Minutes of the 8/5/24 meeting were approved on motion made by Eric Oakes, seconded by Gary Conkling and carried unanimously. (WWZB 9/9/24 Minutes) 5. CORRESPONDENCE: None 6. VOUCHERS: None 7. RESOLUTIONS: 1. ZB-2302–Denial – Abbott, 169 Carver - Vacant Land - D1 Use, C-Variances, Site Plan to Construct a 4-unit Townhouse Structure – Board Attorney Randall advised the Resolution would be ready for the 10/7/24 meeting; 8. PENDING NEW BUSINESS: (Both Carried to 10/7/24) 1. ZB-10-2000-24-0106 - Eagle Rock Realty Investment, 665 Broadway - Use Variance, Subdivision, Site Plan and Bulk Variances; 2. ZB-24-0107 – Dragona, 22 Bryant Place - Setback and Lot Coverage Variances for an inground pool; 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 Avenue - Height Variance for an Accessory Structure - Mr. Carrier, the applicant, was previously sworn and submitted an amended Site Improvement Plan/Survey dated 8/29/24, prepared by Joseph J. Wright, of Blue Marsh Associates of PA, licensed NJ Surveyor. Mr. Wright was sworn in, qualified and accepted. He testified that this plan showed the proposed improvements on the property. Mr. Lydon reviewed his report, noting that raising chickens on the premises is not permitted and requires a "D" variance. The garage is not usable considering the fence and patio. Mr. Yakimik commented and requested a recap on the proposal. He came up with the same variances as Mr. Lydon, adding the proximity of the proposed porch to the pool, which is a safety aspect as well. The Board needed to be refreshed, since the application has been pending for many months. Mr. Lydon also stated the plans were only received on 9/5/24, which is not enough time on file to meet the MLUL. Mr. Randall advised they could proceed at their own risk if someone objects. Mr. Carrier stated he will never use the garage for his car. There are two 5' gate openings, giving a 10' opening, and the garage can be reached and used as such. Chairman Martin advised there are issues with evaluating the application, i.e., chicken coops, height of fence, number of accessory structures, distance of pool from structures, and the number of changes to the plans with conflicting information. They are trying to resolve the conflicting information with this plan. 2 (WWZB 9/9/24 Minutes) Mr. Grefrath recalled discussions about chickens at the Mayor and Council level in 2010. Mr. Yakimik asked for confirmation regarding impervious coverage, noting they are increasing but are still under the maximum. Mr. Oakes inquired about eliminating some of the structures to bring the application more in compliance. Applicant said they are eliminating three small chicken coops. Mr. Yakimik asked for testimony regarding the reason for the proposed porch. Mr. Carrier stated there was a safety issue with stairs going down to the pool, so they felt it would be safer to have a landing porch and turning north to the driveway, instead of going straight down to the pool. It is already there. Chairman Martin stated the Board is not using that as the criteria. Also, the Board has never approved a shed 13'4" high. Applicant stated he looked up the ordinance, but in error, as it was for Westwood, Massachusetts. Mr. Lydon commented the Zoning Officer stated the chicken coop is not permitted, and it is a "D" variance. The Chairman stated there will have to be some correspondence from the Zoning Official as to whether the chicken coops are allowed. For now, he should delete them from the application. The letter of denial did not include them. Mr. Lydon recited excerpts from the MLUL regarding variances as same applies to this application. Mr. Carrier displayed his large photo exhibits, showing the structures. The house is over 100 years old. He is currently at $23,000 for this application, more than the cost of the porch. Chairman Martin noted that is not a reason to grant variances. Applicant continued. Mr. Oakes commented doing a 3'x5' covered entryway with a set of stairs to make the turn vs. a full porch might be a solution to make a current condition safer, while providing a reduction from 13' long to 5'. It would be more compliant. Applicant had made a drawing ahead of time. Mr. Yakimik agreed. The applicant had previously brought in an attorney, but it was too expensive. The Chairman stated the applicant must state what plan he is going with. The smaller is better. There are building code and zoning code requirements to be complied with, and attorneys make the legal arguments in conformance with the law. Here, to move forward, the applicant must state exactly the dimensions. The Chairman stated we must move this along. Applicant stated he would go with the smaller porch plan. The distance from the porch would be 7' and resulting in a 3' variance, much more reasonable. Questions followed. Mr. Ceplo asked if the current steps are in compliance, and it was stated the steps were not counted. He 3 (WWZB 9/9/24 Minutes) felt this proposal was better. The matter was opened to the public, but there were no questions from interested parties. On discussion, the Board determined that since applicants are amending the proposal to the smaller porch, they eliminated the safety issue, and there are trees on his and the neighbor's property that will shield the view of the shed. The Chairman had concern about the number of structures. Mr. Conkling commented on the height. Two motions followed for steps and shed: A motion for the rear steps to approve the smaller landing, 3’x 4’ with 3' steps coming off to the north or south, 7' from the pool, was made by Eric Oakes and seconded by Gary Conkling. On roll call vote, all members voted yes to approve the reduced steps. A motion to deny the shed was made by Eric Oakes and seconded by Gary Conkling. On roll call vote, Matthew Ceplo, Peter Grefrath, and Frank Mantz voted no to deny the shed, and Eric Oakes Gary Conkling, Michael O'Rourke, and William Martin voted yes to deny the shed. 2. ZB-23-0101 - 387 Roslyn LLC, 358 Kinderkamack Road - Add a Second Residential Unit on Second Floor - D1-Use Variance, Bulk Variances, Site Plan approval with a parking variance; Not heard; Carried to 10/7/14 at request of applicant; 3. ZB-24-0102 - Mittelhammer, 124 West End- Bulk Variances for an Addition - Application to add a one-story addition to expand an existing first floor bedroom to accommodate a master bedroom suite, laundry room, bath and closets Joe Bruno, applicant’s licensed NJ Architect, was sworn in and addressed the changes on the application. There was a 229sf reduction on the size of the deck, and the building coverage was reduced from 30% to 28.6%. One of the two variances are eliminated. There would be a stormwater drainage/sewage pit. There are no bathrooms or kitchens in the basement. Mr. Yakimik stated the applicant agreed, that if approved, this system would be designed by an engineer, as a condition of approval. Mr. Lydon stated what they propose now is significantly reduced. Mr. Oakes commented the applicant did a very good job of reducing the variances and is putting in a stormwater management system. This is all favorable. There were no further questions and no interested parties in the public. A motion for approval was made by Eric Oakes with conditions as stated and seconded by Gary Conkling. On roll call vote, all voted yes. Frank Mantz was not eligible to vote. 4 (WWZB 9/9/24 Minutes) 4. ZB-24-0103 - Westwood Investments, LLC, 49 Fairview Avenue - Minor Subdivision with Bulk Variances – (Application has been submitted to the Bergen County Department of Planning - A court reporter was present. Jason Cherchia, Esq., of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, for Donna M. Jennings, Esq., represented the applicant. Chairman Martin recalled at the last meeting the board requested documentation regarding the retaining wall from the applicant. He also noted that applicant did not ask for a subdivision during the settlement. Chairman Martin called Sara Holbig, of the Westwood Tax Collector's Office, who was sworn in. Mr. Randall questioned her regarding the establishment of tax lots. In this case, the request that came to her was for separate addresses, creating free access between the lots. She stated it was one tax lot. There is no straight access between the two duplexes. Both buildings cannot be accessed from 49 Fairview, and that is an issue for emergency services. The Chairman stated it could easily be alleviated if part of the retaining wall were removed. If the retaining wall were modified, it would be one tax lot with two separate addresses, eliminating the need for a subdivision. Mr. Oakes asked if the taxes would be higher if it two separate lots. She responded they would be higher. The way the lot currently exists, she cannot just give two separate addresses. Mr. Cherchia called Police Chief Michael Pontillo, who was sworn in and testified as to his letter dated 6/14/24. Chief Pontillo stated he spoke with the owner as to his concerns and visited the site. If he were responding to an emergency at Unit C, there would be no access from 49 Fairview due to the retaining wall. From an emergency standpoint, that would be an issue. It would make sense, from a public safety standpoint, to give them different addresses. This proposes a unique problem. What if the addresses were numbers and streets instead of A,B,C,D he was asked. Chief Pontillo did not agree it would be better. The Chairman stated it is better than creating two tiny lots. This is a solvable issue without the necessity of a subdivision. Mr. Yakimik asked how the dispatchers find the addresses. The Chief responded there is a special, programmable, dispatch program they utilize, and they also know most of the addresses in town. Fire Chief Brian Kronewitter was sworn in and testified as to his letter dated 6/26/24. One of the major issues that arise is the address. Once the operation goes bad in the beginning, it gets worse. The Chairman commented there was another way to solve this other than a subdivision. Attorney Cherchia asked Ms. Holbig 5 (WWZB 9/9/24 Minutes) how they could get two separate addresses as the Chairman suggested. She indicated by subdivision or condominium status. Brian Fox, Licensed NJ Land Surveyor, was sworn in, qualified and accepted. Mr. Fox explained the current site conditions. Lot 3 has frontage on both roads. There are two duplex units, each facing one of the streets. He was asked to prepare a subdivision to create two separate lots to get separate street addresses for the properties on the streets they face. There was a professional planner present to address the variance. Mr. Fox gave the property dimensions and went over the bulk schedule. He reviewed Mr. Yakimik's report and comments. It was his understanding that the retaining wall was constructed and installed under the settlement plan. Mr. Oakes inquired if there was a previous address for Kinderkamack Road. Mr. Fox responded no; he was told it was 49 Fairview, and to put that address on the plans. He was advised the reason they could not get an address for Kinderkamack Road is because it is one lot. They could not find out anything different otherwise. Mr. Oakes thought it would continue as the next address on Kinderkamack, #224. He would ask that the retaining wall be placed on one of the lots if the subdivision were approved. Mr. Lydon commented per the settlement plan, they were to provide four seepage pits, and here they only have two, which were designed without the Board's approval. The trench grates were also removed per Mr. Timsak, and the Board approved those grates. Now they are not there. Further, there was a change in the grates being truncated, and it was not approved by the Board. Mr. Fox stated the drainage being removed was a requirement of the County. Mr. Lydon read from the County's email that they no longer meet the requirements of the seepage pits and grates. Mr. Fox noted Mr. Raimondi approved it, but there was no writing on hand. It was requested. There were no further questions of Mr. Fox and no interested parties. Attorney Cherchia called Mr. Cohen, applicant's principal, still under oath. He was asked to expand on the approvals and recommendations. He testified they addressed them with Mr. Raimondi and updated the plans. They submitted their plans to the Building Department, who directed them to contact Burgis, and they received two letters. Thereafter, they received building permits. Then the CO was issued based on the construction being in compliance. The next witness was Andrew Janiw, NJ Licensed Professional Planner, of Beacon Planning and Consulting Services, LLC, Colts Neck NJ, who was sworn in, qualified and accepted. He reviewed the 6 (WWZB 9/9/24 Minutes) application and visited the site, which he described. They are seeking a subdivision for two residences facing Fairview Avenue and two residences facing Kinderkamack Road. He reviewed the variances. They were advised by the Tax Assessor that the only way to get the two separate addresses is by way of subdivision or condominium status. It appears there has to be some kind of separation. As for the retaining wall, it was approved. Testimony was given from Police and Fire that moving the retaining wall has no bearing on their operations. They came to the only conclusion that a subdivision is necessary for safety. The variance cannot be granted without complying with the purposes of zoning, providing special reasons of zoning and advancing one of the purposes. Mr. Janiw presented planning testimony per the ordinance, Master Plan and MLUL. The paramount reason for the variances is the health and safety of the people that reside there. This is also in compliance with the Coventry criteria. There are no substantial detriments. He believes they satisfy the criteria for the bulk variance and went on to the "C" variances and criteria met. This is a better Zoning alternative. Mr. Janiw addressed each and every aspect. Mr. Oakes asked if they went to the Mayor and Council to request new addresses. The attorney responded no. He was directed here by the Zoning Officer. The Chairman stated a subdivision is not the only way. If there is an opening in the retaining wall, the post office will give you two addresses. Have they pursued this from that perspective. Separate addresses on separate streets would address safety issues. Attorney Cherchia responded they have not tried going to the Mayor and Council and asked how this could be done. The tax collector advised them only by subdivision. They are only here to get a subdivision to obtain two separate addresses to address health and safety issues. They have spent extensive amounts to go through this application as directed. The Chairman and Board Attorney said they have not explored all options. They have not contacted the Mayor and Council. It was 11:00 pm, and the Board stated the matter would be continued. Attorney Cherchia said they are not to going to continue, as they brought the Police and Fire Chief and Tax Collector as the Board requested. There is no other way to resolve this, and that is their position. Chairman Martin with gavel announced the matter would be continued on 10/7/24 for a vote. In the meantime, they would have the Board Attorney look into other ways to solve this. Attorney Cherchia said the clock is ticking. They are not granting an extension of time. Mr. Lydon calculated the time, which is 120 days from when the application was deemed complete. They did not receive checklist "A", so the clock is not running. Attorney Cherchia requested two minutes to speak with 7 (WWZB 9/9/24 Minutes) client at 11:07 pm. He returned and granted a one-month extension. They will look for various alternatives and not provide any additional testimony. They ask to be moved up on the agenda. The Chairman agreed. They opened and closed to the public. No interested parties were present. The matter was carried to 10/7/24 with no further notice and a time extension granted. 5. ZB-24-0104 – Rasmussen, 99 Third Avenue - Ground Level Deck - Requires Building and Lot Coverage Variances – Not heard; Applicants did not notice; Carried to 10/7/24 and Notice required; 6. ZB-24-0105 - 106 Properties LLC, 106 Old Hook Road- Proposed 16-unit Residential structure, D1-Use Variance, Bulk Variances and Site Plan Approval – Not heard; Applicant’s attorney came forward and requested an adjournment to 10/7/24, with a possible Special Meeting request. The matter was carried to 10/7/24 with no further notice. 7. ZB-24-0108 – Spiech, 56 West End Avenue - Building and Lot Coverage Variances, as well as Accessory Structure Setback to the Principal Dwelling for the Construction of an Addition - Not heard; Carried to 10/7/24 at request of the applicant; 10. DISCUSSION: None 11. ADJOURNMENT – On motions, made seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 pm. Respectfully submitted, Mary R. Verducci, Zoning Board Secretary 8