Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unpermitted Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies request to legalize enclosed pergola at 59 Rivona Street after stop‑work, court fine
Summary
The board denied an application to retain and enclose a partially built pergola at 59 Rivona Street, citing prior violation, unpermitted construction and repeated contractor/permit issues; motion to deny passed 7‑0.
The Clifton Zoning Board of Adjustment voted 7‑0 on April 16 to deny an application to keep and finish a partially constructed pergola/sunroom at 59 Rivona Street after city enforcement actions and an active stop‑work order.
Avraham Friedman, the property owner, told the board the structure was built last fall to accommodate an outdoor religious observance and that the pergola has removable glass panes and louvers so it can be open air in warm weather and closed in colder months. “The structure was initially constructed back in September, October when, religious, holiday requires us to spend some time outdoors under the open air,” Friedman said. He and counsel said the owner paid a municipal fine after the city issued a violation and stop‑work order.
Neighbors told the board they objected to the permanent structure and said earlier unpermitted work at the property had already damaged trees, changed yard elevations and reduced privacy. Amy and Michael Maffey, neighbors at 136 Edgewood Avenue, described trees removed during earlier work and bright backyard lighting that they said intrudes on adjacent homes.
Board members focused on several factors: the structure was already constructed without permits; testimony and building‑department records showed a stop‑work order and municipal court action; the pergola encroaches on the rear yard (23.6 feet where 35 is required), is closer to a pool than allowed (7 feet where 10 is required) and increases lot coverage (32.1% where 27% is required). The board also noted fragrances of repeat permit noncompliance on the lot.
After discussion, Commissioner Fucas moved to deny; Vice Chair Molnar seconded. The motion to deny passed 7‑0. Commissioner Fucas told the applicant, “I can't buy that. I think there's just too much going on on this lot,” while Chairman Zucchino said the board had been “too considerate” previously and must enforce permits.
What happened next: The denial was recorded and the board’s action closes the zoning remedy sought to legalize the structure. The transcript and applicant counsel show the owner has already paid the municipal fine; building permits remain required for any future work. The denial does not remove the municipal court record of the violation.
