MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

December 1, 2005

Vice-Chair Chris Richter called the meeting to order and read the Open Public Meeting Advertisement Notice: Notice of this meeting was given to the Citizen and the Daily Record, posted with the Borough Clerk and on the Bulletin Board and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.

ROLL CALL:

Present: Moody, Richter, Kane, Max, Rusak, Sullivan (arrived 8:40)

Absent: Gotthelf, Bolo, Sheasby Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan

REVIEW OF MINUTES:

The minutes of the November 3 meeting were approved by voice vote with the deletion of the statement regarding the intent of the zoning law on page 3, 2^nd paragraph.

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:

STEVEN & MEGAN SHUHET Appl. #05-465

Chris Richter made the motion of approval, carried by 1-0 roll call of the only eligible voter.

NICK & PAM BAYVEL Appl.#05-466

David Kane made the motion of approval, seconded by Pat Rusak and carried by 3-0 roll call of eligible voters.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Chris Richter announced that no new applications would begin after 10:30. If any calculations are not verified, the application will not be considered but will be carried to the next meeting. Application material has to be on record 10 days prior to the hearing.

Interpretation:

Referring to his 11/28/05 letter, Marc Walker, licensed engineer and resident, noted that he was involved in the committee meetings to create Ordinance 14-05. He recently reviewed a plan as interpreted by Hagberg and Ryden and he disagrees with their interpretation. Prior to this ordinance, there were no controls on building height other than on the front; this ordinance instituted controls on average grade on sides not fronting on the street; i.e. if the front is 35’, on remaining sides, the average grade to the peak is 38’, so that there could be a garage, or walk-out basement. Any substantial grades could create issues, so they wanted some control and did not want excess cut or excess fill.

This request comes as a result of Bill Ryden’s interpretation that all three sides needed to be measured and averaged. Walker believes that the language is confusing.

He referred to the first application that was submitted under the new ordinance and he believes it is being misinterpreted.

Zoning Officer Dan Hagberg: if you are dealing with average grade, you are dealing with elevations that could produce a height on one side that would be much higher than 38 feet. He and Bill Ryden believe that average was referring to the average of all sides.

David Kane asked how high one of the sides would be. Walker – it would be higher than 38’ but it fronts on two streets. Richter – we are a sloped community and we wanted to protect; it was our intent to have them average the three sides, or on a corner lot, average two sides. We don’t want to get into a situation where we allow a 45 to 50 foot exposure on any elevation. Richter – the ordinance can be refined; previously we have not had controls over the non-street side. Walker agreed that this concept works and prevents massive grade changes. Kane – some of the committee members were very concerned and did not want to restrict the rear elevation to 35 feet. Hagberg – Bill Ryden and I wanted to be conservative because of the committee concern. Arthur Max asked if any of the other committee members had been contacted. Richter – having sat through the meetings for a year, I believe it is clear as to what the intent was. Kane – Walker’s two sentences reflect the intent of the Committee. Max – is it better to interpret the ordinance as written and use the variance process for exceptions? Richter - the intent was to allow a walkout in the rear, but no more than required for the walkout, the 38’ restriction works. This works to protect the back of the house. Max asked if Kane and Richter are convinced that this doesn’t allow an extreme case. Kane thought it did. This allows a 41’ height, with the three foot grade change and averages to 38’.

There were no public comments. Chris Richter moved that the Board provide interpretation of Ordinance 14-05 to Dan Hagberg and Bill Ryden that calculations of the average height of non-street frontage should be interpreted to utilize the average of all non-street elevations. This should not be construed to apply to individual non-street elevations. David Kane seconded the motion, approved by 5-0 roll call vote.

ROBERT VOLOSIN Appl. #05-467

There was no document for formal withdrawal so the application was dismissed without prejudice with a motion by Jim Moody, seconded by Arthur Max, carried by voice vote.

Carried from November 3:

JOHN HEIN & MIZAR TURDIU 48 Glen Road

Bl. 78, Lot 44 Appl. #05-468

Shoreline RA zone

Architect Tina Vosco presented the application. Vosco reviewed that the Board had concern about the shoreline setback and she described the location of the house on Wildwood Lake. Vosco referred to the revised plans. Exhibit A2 reflected the revised plans resubmitted, a site plan dated 11-21-05. The proposed conservatory has been moved so the lakefront setback is not impacted. Photos from lakefront locations were shown to demonstrate that there would be little to no impact. There are many lakefront trees to offer the owners privacy and to reduce impact from the lake. Vosco noted that these photos were taken after most leaves had fallen. The applicant does not intend to remove the trees. The encroachment would be only approximately 3 square feet at the corner of the proposed addition on the left side.

From the Public: Jay Eveleth, adjacent neighbor at 44 Glen Road, noted that most of the homeowners have felt compelled to cut down many trees. He wants the Board to take into consideration that this applicant is protecting the tree canopy and he is grateful for that.

Comments reflected that they had addressed Board concerns. The encroachment is deminimis. The motion for approval was made by David Kane, seconded by Pat Rusak and carried by 5-0 roll call vote.

Because the the following two applicants were informed that there would not be seven Board members, they asked to have their applications carried. Jim Moody made the motion, seconded by Arthur Max, and carried by voice vote to carry the Bajaj and Kolding applications to the January 5 meeting.

NICOLAI & ALEKS KOLDING 100 Hanover Rd.

Bl. 75 Lot 20 Appl.#05-464

FAR, front, side RA zone

BALWINDER BAJAJ 100 Pollard Rd.

Bl. 110, Lot 36 Appl. #05-469

Side RA zone

New application:

SCOTT & ANDREA KIMMELMAN 90 Tower Hill Rd.

Bl. 40 Lot 16 Appl. #05-470

FAR, ILC & front RAA zone

Andrea Kimmelman presented the application. Attorney Sullivan explained the process to the applicant, i.e. all five Board members need to approve your floor area variance. You could carry the application or you could present your case and then either ask for a vote or ask that the vote be carried. Chris Richter suggested that she could present, hear our comments and possibly go back and consider. Kimmelman testified that their property is unique because the house sits sideways on the lot and it is not clear where the front of the house is located. They propose adding a porch to identify the front of the house. They also want to add a two-car detached garage in the front; it would be facing the side. They also wish to expand the kitchen and add a mudroom. She pointed out that the FAR is already exceeding the 13% ordinance limit; this plan would be a modest increase in floor area because portions of two currently enclosed porches would be opened. The plan would decrease improved lot coverage because a semi-circular driveway would be reduced. The garage proposal would create a 34’ front setback, non-conforming only at the corner of the garage. The front yard exception does not apply to this property, so the 40 foot setback is in effect. Chris Richter questioned why the garage couldn’t be set back to conform. Kimmelman pointed out that the area to the left contains an old rhododendron garden with staircases that date back to the beginning of the house. Photos marked Exhibit A3 to show the view of the rhodos from the house. Kimmelman said that the architect had been asked to design a conforming garage but there were various reasons that alternatives did not work. The FAR is high because the entire third floor is included. Richter asked whether the architect had determined if the height in the rear would cause the basement to be included in floor area. She did not know. David Kane asked if they had considered changing the direction of the garage so the wider side would face the street. Andrea said they tried many variations, this one worked best. David Kane pointed out that the adjoining house is also close to the street.

Public: Wendy Coates, 151 Lookout Road, neighboring property to the right said we are totally supportive and have no concerns about the placement of this garage. Our house is much closer to the road than this proposal. The Hapgoods are unique but they are not always functional for a family. Coates asked why this variance would be a problem when it is only six feet. Chris Richter explained that the Board needs to determine whether there is a reasonable alternative that stays within the ordinances. Jim Moody – we are here to consider variances, not to interpret the law. Chris Sullivan – variances go with the property, not the owner. Peggy Ware, neighbor across the street from the Kimmelman’s, said this is a difficult piece of property; she prefers that the existing landscaping remain. Kimmelman acknowledged that they will need to remove a large pine tree, whether or not the garage is approved. Ware thinks this is a wonderful solution. They have maintained the integrity of the Hapgood interior.

Board comments: Rusak – would not approve, would like the garage to be moved back six feet or next to the house. She would approve the other variances if the garage were moved, even if ILC is increased. Moody – would approve as submitted; FAR and ILC are not excessive. David Kane – agrees that, other than moving it back, this is the logical location. Kimmelman pointed out that, if the garage were pushed back, they would need a sideyard variance and would lose the landscaping. She believes that the landscaping is as important to the integrity as the house. Richter – has no issue with FAR or ILC, he is still not convinced that the garage couldn’t be moved. He doesn’t think that rhododendron is reason to grant a variance. Kimmelman noted that if the garage were moved back, the blacktop would come right up to the house. Richter is accepting Andrea’s testimony that the landscaping feature is critical. She noted that the rhodos were the feature that convinced them to buy the house. Arthur Max – six feet is not that significant, this seems to be the most reasonable approach. Attorney Sullivan suggested that the vote could be bifurcated. Five votes are required for FAR, three are required for the C variances.

Jim Moody moved to approve the FAR variance; Chris Richter added the condition of confirmation that the lower story is complied with under Ordinance 14-05; he doesn’t think it is an issue. Chris Richter seconded the motion, carried by 5-0 vote. The motion to approve the ILC was made by Chris Richter, seconded by Jim Moody, carried by 5-0 vote. The front yard setback motion was made by Arthur Max, seconded by David Kane, carried by 4-1 roll call vote (Rusak denied).

The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Mage Jackson, Secretary