WALDWICK ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAL SESSION July 26, 2017 The Formal Session of the Waldwick Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 8:00 p.m. in the auditorium of the Administration Building and was called to order by Gene Sullivan, Chairman, who made the announcement of adequate notice of all meetings. ROLL CALL: Mr. Sullivan present Mr. Gurian present Mr. Careri present Mr. Mones absent Mr. Tencza absent Mr. Walsh present Mr. Wekarski present Mr. Nieman present Mr. Ferrone present Also Present: John D Anton, Board Attorney Joyce Sinclair, Board Secretary Bernard Mirandi, Board Engineer Paul Grygiel, Board Planner GREETINGS TO THE PUBLIC: No one appeared. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A Motion was made by Mr. Gurian and seconded by Mr.Walsh for the approval of the Minutes of June 28, 2017. A unanimous vote was taken. The Minutes were approved as submitted. RESOLUTIONS: PEREZ 110 Wyckoff Avenue 17-K Block 120.01, Lot 2 Deck A motion was made for the approval of the Resolution by Mr. Walsh and seconded by Mr. Careri. A unanimous vote was taken. The Resolution was approved. 1
DOYLE 13 Monroe Street 17-I Block 120.01, Lot 31 Deck The Applicant s date of the hearing was misprinted by the newspaper and this application will be postponed until the August 30 th meeting. TARABOCCHIA 20 Schuler Avenue 17-M Block 148, Block 45 Deck Mr. Tabarochia appeared before the Board. The survey was marked as A-2. There is a 523 sq. ft. deck which includes steps and the masonry deck below the deck is being removed which will be removed from the lot coverage. The rear distance to the rear yard is 31 feet. A colored rendering of what deck will look like when built was noted and marked as A-4. Mr. Mysliwiec noted that due to the bump out before the landing the lot coverage is changing to 33.4%. The difference to the rear yard to the platform was 31 feet and is now 27 feet because the bump out before the landing is slightly larger. There was no one in the audience to address this Application. The Application was closed. A motion was made by Mr. Brennecke and seconded by Mr. Wekarski to approve the Application. A unanimous vote was taken. The Application was approved. ORION REALTY 28 West Prospect Street 16-0 Block 111, Lot 5 Amended Site Plan/ Major Soil Movement Bruce Whitaker, Esq. appeared and gave an overview of the Application. He noted that the site is located in the VC-3 zone, the village center district. The applicant is seeking to expand what is there now and would be expanding a legal non conforming use. The Applicant is seeing variance relief under the D variance, as they do not meet all conditions for a conditional use. The following exhibits were marked: A-1 Application A-2 Notices B-1 Engineer s Report dated April 11, 2017 B-3 DPW Report B-4 Police Report dated 5/2/ 2017 B-5 Fire Department Report dated 5/15/17 2
Mr. Whitaker noted that the use is permitted. There is residential on the second floor and retail on the first floor. The applicant would like to redevelop the existing building. He noted that the use for office and retail is not viable. The Code in this district does not say residential use is not permitted; it says residential use is permitted but only on the second floor. The Applicant would like to show that there is good concept from a planning perspective in this area and that this is another stepping stone in the right direction. The applicant plans to upgrade this building which integrates well into this neighborhood. It will also help meet the need of rental use in this area. There would be one modest management office for the proposed units. Mr. Whitaker noted that the units are considered a mixed use under RIS standards. From a parking standpoint it does not meet the criteria of the ordinance for two parking spots for every unit. The Applicant feels that based on the size of the units the parking proposed can be accommodated. Mr. Whitaker noted that C bulk variances are also requested and they will seek those variances based upon the use. They are proposing that they be incorporated into the D variance. He noted that the Applicant can meet the criteria and can show why the D variance is appropriate. Mr. Whitaker noted that the Applicant is not exasperating conditions but does not meet code requirements. He noted that they are deficient in parking, the size of the parking spaces and in the required footage from the parking line for front parking. Mr. Whitaker noted the Coventry Case on conditional uses Mr. Reveley appeared before the Board. He noted that he began renovating in this area and the streetscape and lights have also been improved. He noted that his office has been in this area for 19 years. He noted the colored rendering, Exhibit A-3, which notes the existing building to the right and the addition to the left. Photographs were noted and marked as A-4. He noted the photo of the front of the building which was built 19 years ago. He noted the second photo from the eastern side facing the building which contains office on first floor and three apartments. He noted the longevity of the tenants that are there and that there have been no problems or issues with the tenancy on the first floor of the building. Three photos of the rear of the building were noted. Many of these building pre date the current zoning code. He noted Photo #5 which shows the full view of the width of the property. Mr. Reveley indicated where the addition joins the existing building. It was noted that the roof line is continuous with the existing roof line. The first floor is on grade and is suitable for ADA use with no steps to all two bedroom apartments. It is proposed that the addition will match the existing building and be residential in look and style. The management office is proposed to remain. Mr. Reveley plans to own and operate the rentals. It was noted that this will be a beneficial upgrade to this area. 3
Mr. Gurian questioned whether the parking requirement would be more or less for office than residential. It was indicated the parking requirements are more for office use. The proposed finish of the building is hardy plank to match the existing vinyl siding of the existing. Mr. Reveley noted that there are many commercial vacancies in the area. Mr. Grygiel questioned the affordable housing requirement. Mr. Whitaker noted his conversation with the Borough Attorney and there will be an affordable element or an alternative because this is a small set of units. Mr. D Anton noted that this will be left to the Mayor and Council. Ed Sherman, Architect, appeared before Board. Mr. Sherman described the continuation of the existing building making it an L shape. He noted that the siding will match the existing and the proposed hardy plank will be painted to match. There will be new landscape on the property and a new parking lot. In response to the Board s concern the Applicant stipulated that all siding will be the same. Mr. Wekarski questioned solar panels and it was indicated that they will be in the rear. Mr. Sullivan questioned the wooden fence in Photo 5 which is what would be seen from the rear of the first floor apartments. Mr. Gurian questioned overnight parking and it was indicated that overnight street parking is allowed. There was no one in the audience to address this application. Mr. Mirandi questioned the current opening in the fence and if there is an access easement. Mr. Reveley indicated that he uses that access personally to access his other office on another street. Tom Ashbahian, Architect, Engineer, Planner, appeared before the Board. He noted this to be a unique neighborhood in Waldwick. It is dense in development and very strongly influenced by the train station. He noted that because of the character of the neighborhood, this property is not only viable but is a desirable place for this type of development to take place. There are a large varierty of uses immediate to this site. Within 200 feet and beyond there are significant residential single family, multi family, first floor, seond floor mixed in and are adjacent to many small business e.g,. deli, bake shop, mehanicl, auto maintenance. It is a tightly compact land use pattern and many of the buildings are 100 years old. He noted the subject lot is 12,500 sq ft and comprises 20% of the block. It is the largest lot in that block. He noted that the Borough expected mixed use development in this area as this is the heart of a VC-3 zone. 4
Mr. Ashbahian noted that there is no negative effect to allowing residential on the first floor. There is also a commercial use on the first floor. He further noted that the parking would be more intense if it were retail use. He noted the current non conformities on the site. He also noted that office space is hard to fill in this area. He noted the Burbridge Case vs. Mine Hill were a pre-existing use expanded and it was recognized viable because of improvements to the property. This redevelopment fits the upgrade in the Burbridge Case. There are a lot of site improvements which will embellish the site. This will have a positive effect on other properties in the area. In connection with the surrounding area, Mr.Ashbahian noted that he sees no negative aspects to the proposal. He point out that there would be positive elements in creating new life in an area that has real estate that has run down over the years. The proposal will improve the neighborhood. Mr. D Anton noted Page 3 of the Planner s Report marked as B-2 and questioned why a 3-story building could not be built. Mr. Ashbahian advised that there is nothing prohibiting them from building a 3 story; however it is radically different when you build three stories. Mr. Ashbahian described the various lots in the area and described the units on them. Mr. D Anton questioned why the density could not be reduced. Mr. Ashbahain noted that the setbacks and converges set the density and they are met. The proposed building meets the setback and coverage. Mr. D Anton noted the development pattern around this building and questioned why six units are being proposed instead of four. Mr. Whitaker noted that the Applicant meets converge requirements and does not want to build a building out of character with the neighborhood. Mr. Ashabhian noted that mixed use criteria does not tie us down to number of units. Mr. Gurian questioned if reducing the number of units by two would create more parking. It was noted that the Code requires 20. Mr. Walsh questioned why the code requires commercial on the first floor. Mr. Grygiel advised that the intent of a retail district is to have active street fronts with people coming and going so it is not dead space with parking lots and to encourage walk ability along the street. The new apartment building being built across the tracks was noted which has one small retail on the street level. Mr. Grygiel noted that there is no density requirement with a mixed use but it is a key standard that the residential should be on the second floor; however the Board can consider other factors such as the ADA attractiveness. Mr. Ashbahian that there will be one office on the street level. Trash enclosures and buffers were discussed and it was noted that the Applicant is prepared to provide these. 5
There was no one in the audience to address this Application. This Application will be continued on August 30 th. ADJOURNMENT: A motion was made for adjournment at 10:14 pm by Mr. Gurian and seconded by Mr. Sullivan. Joyce C. Sinclair Secretary 6