Oradell zoning board grants retroactive lot‑coverage variance for 734 Amaryllis Avenue, conditions stormwater review

The Oradell Zoning Board of Adjustment on July 20 granted a retroactive lot‑coverage variance for a homeowner at 734 Amaryllis Avenue, finding the property exceeds the borough's 40% lot‑coverage limit by about 1.3 percent. The board voted 4–0 to approve calendar 898‑26, subject to submission of stormwater calculations to the borough engineer and an updated as‑built survey documenting the seepage pit and underground connections.

Martin DiBenedetto, the applicant and homeowner, said the overage resulted from a contractor’s error when his detached garage and adjacent driveway were built in 2017. “When my detached garage was built in 2017, the subcontractor mistakenly expanded the driveway and small paver area next to the garage by about a foot,” he testified, saying the as‑built survey shows 41.3% coverage versus a 40% limit and that the overage amounts to roughly 140 square feet. DiBenedetto told the board personal circumstances delayed remediation and argued removing the hardscape now would create cost, disruption and potential drainage impacts.

Borough engineer David Atkinson told the board municipal records did not include the drainage calculations referenced in a recent letter and asked the applicant to provide them for review. Atkinson said the missing calculations are the board’s primary concern and suggested the board could make approval conditional on satisfying the engineer’s office: “If the calculations work, nothing needs to be done; if it needs to be addressed … maybe a rain barrel or some mitigation could work,” he said.

A nearby neighbor, Lou Esler of 746 Amaryllis Avenue, told the board the yard changes have reduced flooding at his property and urged the board to allow the work to remain. “Everything Marty and Maria did to their house has benefited me,” Esler said.

Board members who spoke during deliberations said there were no recorded complaints and that the modification appears visually typical for the neighborhood, but they emphasized the need for documented calculations and a correct as‑built survey showing drain locations, pipe sizes and alignments. One member moved to grant the variance with the condition that the applicant supply the stormwater calculations to Atkinson’s office and that the as‑built be updated for municipal records. The motion passed on a roll‑call vote: Campriel — yes; Odinski — yes; Devine — yes; Chair — yes.

The board noted the administrative process before final sign‑off: the applicant should supply the original design or contractor calculations (the board suggested starting with the architect who handled the project) and the engineering office will verify whether any mitigation is needed. If engineering finds no deficiency, the variance will proceed to final administrative approval; if adjustments are required, the engineer and applicant will work toward acceptable mitigation.

The board also reminded the applicant that because one member recused himself earlier in the evening, four members decided the case and three affirmative votes were necessary to approve the application. The board adjourned the hearing on the application with the stated conditions and instructions about where to submit the missing materials.