Zoning board carries developer’s 10‑unit proposal at 209 Boiling Spring Ave to August after technical concerns

On May 7, 2026 the East Rutherford Zoning Board of Adjustment heard testimony on a proposal to replace a nonconforming three‑family house at 209 Boiling Spring Avenue with a three‑story, 10‑unit multi‑family building but voted to carry the application to Aug. 6 to allow revised plans addressing outstanding technical issues.

Santo Alampi, legal counsel for the applicant, said the project would demolish the existing structure and construct a building with a ground‑floor parking garage and two residential floors above. "We would like to proceed with the application," Alampi told the board, noting exhibits and affidavits had been submitted for the record.

Architect Justin Scalfani (Guzzo Architects) described the layout and marked the architectural exhibits. He said the lower level would contain 16 parking spaces, a lobby with package and mail areas, elevator access and a secondary rear stair. The two upper floors would contain eight one‑bedroom units, one two‑bedroom unit and one three‑bedroom unit; Scalfani provided a range of unit sizes of about 667–928 square feet for the one‑bedroom units and said two‑ and three‑bedroom units could be up to roughly 1,100 square feet. He said the finished first‑floor elevation would sit roughly six to seven feet lower than the existing dwelling.

Engineer Adnan Khan (AWZ Engineering) presented the site plan set and a Project Impact Assessment, summarizing parking calculations, state electric‑vehicle charging requirements and the proposed stormwater approach. Khan said the design anticipates an on‑site storm basin and a connection to a street inlet but that additional survey data are needed to confirm the outlet route.

Board engineer Glenn Beckmeyer flagged two technical constraints: the nearest existing inlet is approximately 230 feet away at Everett Place, and the proposed retaining wall along Orchard and Boiling Spring could reach about 6.5 feet high and sits on or near the property line. Beckmeyer advised that a temporary construction easement, a permit easement and an agreement to restore neighboring properties would likely be required for wall construction. "You will need a temporary construction easement and a permit easement for the wall, along with an agreement to return their properties back to the condition they were at," he said.

Planner Ray Tripodi and other board professionals requested recalculation of the main building coverage and more detail on bedroom sizes; Tripodi indicated the coverage figure in the submission needed to be reconciled with the ordinance definitions. The board also asked for clarification about trash pickup; counsel and applicants said pickup had been described as curbside but did not specify whether a private hauler or borough collection would be used.

Given those outstanding items, Alampi asked to postpone the next appearance to allow the team to prepare revised plans. Mr. Philip Sorbera moved to carry the application to Aug. 6, 2026, with required filings to the board secretary and no further notice; Sergio Segalini seconded the motion and the board passed it. Chairman Philip Alberta announced the Aug. 6 hearing date.

Board counsel Richard Cedzidlo reminded the applicant that revised plans must be submitted at least 10 days before the scheduled hearing. No final votes or approvals on the use variance or site plan were taken at the May 7 meeting.

The application remains scheduled for Aug. 6, 2026; the applicant must return with revised plans addressing building coverage calculations, clarification of trash pickup arrangements, stormwater outlet details and retaining‑wall easements.