Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variances for pool and patio at 60 Shore Road with engineering conditions
Summary
The Woodcliff Lake board approved variances allowing a pool (proposed setback about 12.6–12.7 ft) and a patio (proposed 8.6 ft) at 60 Shore Road, subject to compliance with the borough engineer’s review letter and installation of seepage/sewage pit and perimeter drainage to manage added impervious area.
The Woodcliff Lake Zoning Board approved variances to allow a new in‑ground pool and adjoining patio at 60 Shore Road, voting unanimously to grant the relief with conditions tied to the borough engineer’s recommendations.
Attorney Lawrence Kleiner presented the application on behalf of the homeowners and described two variances: a rear‑yard setback for the pool (the application cited a proposed setback of about 12.6–12.7 feet where 20 feet is required) and a reduced rear setback for a surrounding patio (proposed 8.6 feet where 20 feet is required). “We’re seeking two variances,” Kleiner said at the hearing, describing the site as a corner lot constrained by a drainage easement.
Why it matters: the project increases impervious surface on the lot by the board’s tally (the applicant cited an increase of about 1,245 square feet). Borough staff and the board said the approval hinges on engineering controls to prevent off‑site runoff: the engineer’s review letter recommended a seepage/sewage pit sized to handle the added runoff and a perimeter drain tied into existing storm infrastructure.
Pool contractor Michael Panote, qualified by the board as an expert in pool installation, told members the yard constraints required moving the pool behind the house and closer to property lines. Panote described the drainage approach the applicant proposes and said the design uses a three‑ to four‑foot apron around the pool to protect the wall and convey water to the seepage system. At one point he summarized the critical zoning constraint: “The pool setback is proposed to be 12.7 feet where 20 feet is required.”
Board members and the borough engineer pressed the applicant on grading, exact seepage‑pit sizing and final elevation details. Anthony (the borough engineer referenced in the public record) told the board he expected the applicant to provide sealed drainage calculations and to comply with the soil‑moving review if excavation thresholds were exceeded. The applicant’s representatives said they would comply.
No members of the public cross‑examined the witnesses during the scheduled public‑comment period. With conditions that require compliance with the engineer’s review letter (including perimeter drain details and a seepage pit sized for the additional impervious surface) and any necessary soil‑moving permits, the board voted to approve the application.
What’s next: the approval is contingent on the applicant submitting the required engineered plans and permits; the board recorded the approval by roll call and noted that final building permits and any required county soil‑moving permits remain to be obtained.
