MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

February 2, 2006

Chair Jill Gotthelf 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.

Bob Sheasby signed the Oath of Office forms to begin a new term.

ROLL CALL:

Present: Gotthelf, Richter, Kane, Moody, Sheasby, Bolo, Max

Absent: Sullivan, Rusak Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan

REVIEW OF MINUTES:

The minutes of the January 5 meeting were approved by voice vote.

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:

NICOLAI & ALEKS KOLDING Appl.#05-464

David Kane noted that the conditional statement, “approved in compliance with the plans submitted” has been challenged on a previous resolution. Attorney Sullivan said that the language of the condition is not being challenged. Gotthelf – a subsequent permit is different from our language for the specific permit for these variances. Richter – if we were to condition our approval on a one story structure, not being allowed to add another story, that would have changed our mind. Sullivan asked if they want to condition every approval on any change, requiring them to come back here. Richter – we approve an application based on a specific set of our plans. We disagree with Attorney Oostdyk’s analysis. Sullivan – on the face of this determination, we have to add some other specific language. We have to look at it and consider language to prevent this from occurring again. That could require that if someone wanted to deviate, they would have to return to this Board. Jim Moody made the motion of approval, seconded by Richter, carried by 5-0 roll call.

BALWINDER BAJAJ Appl. #05-469

Chris Richter made the motion of approval, seconded by Arthur Max and carried by 5-0 roll call of eligible voters.

WILLIAM & DENISE GOODBAR Appl. #05-471

David Kane made the motion of approval, seconded by Jim Moody and carried by 5-0 roll call of eligible voters.

MICHAEL MCELDUFF Appl. #05-472

Chris Richter made the motion of approval, seconded by Jim Moody and carried by 5-0 roll call of eligible voters.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Chair Jill Gotthelf 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.

THOMAS & NICOLE RENNA 132 Lake Drive

Bl. 102, Lot 68 Appl. #06-475

FAR, ILC RA zone

The application was presented by Nicole Renna and Jeffry McEntee (licensed architect in NJ). Referring to sheet A1, the design intent is to rework the kitchen, improve traffic flow, remove the powder room from the dining room and expand the kitchen/breakfast area. Referring to page 5, the existing FAR is 17.47 %, they propose an additional 145 sq. feet, increasing FAR to 18.18%. Section 3 on page 2 should be corrected. The existing ILC is 38.16%, with a proposed increase to 39.93% for the addition. The Board was uncomfortable with the coverage.

Exhibits A1-4 were photos of the house and the area of the proposed addition. The terrace was removed as a condition of a prior resolution. 8161square feet of coverage is proposed. The Board asked if the existing calculations include the terrace that was to be removed. The architect was not sure whether the calculation included the terrace or not.

David Kane pointed out that the 1997 resolution specified a maximum coverage of 38.54%; McEntee presented the 6/23/97 site plan, Exhibit A5 prepared by Architect Richard Nelson. The

Board noted that this application proposed reconstruction of the terrace. Peter Bolo asked if they had considered moving the entrance so the coverage would not be increased so dramatically. Nicole said she thought this was a better plan aesthetically. Richter – did you calculate or did you base your coverage on the previous application? McEntee – we did not recalculate. Gotthelf – we require a calculation of existing conditions that you have sealed, not a total based on someone else’s calculation. Gotthelf – this plan is not correct because you were supposed to remove five feet of the driveway, but you didn’t do that. Kane summarized: there are two concerns; the 39.93% is too large plus the documents do not represent the existing conditions, so there are too many inconsistencies.

Arthur Max – the addition is not unreasonable but we should let them know how we feel about this proposal. Gotthelf – before we act on this, we need an accurate calculation of the coverage. In the meantime, you could proceed with a description of the rest of the application.

McEntee – the addition fills in the right rear corner of the structure. We propose moving the powder room off the dining room, adding counter space and a mudroom, plus extending the covered porch. The ceiling might be vaulted or tray but would not be higher than 9 feet.

Richter – the addition is reasonable but this is an excessive coverage request. Most important, we need accurate calculations. Bolo – the addition is great but you don’t have a large enough lot to accommodate the terrace. Your wrap-around porch could substitute for the terrace. Gotthelf – because the drawings and calculations are not accurate, we can not address where you might be able to reduce coverage. You have to correct the application and return. Moody – I like the terrace if you can shave coverage elsewhere, such as the driveway. Sheasby, reading from the ’97 resolution – we are bound by the limits on coverage from that approval. Richter suggested having a survey done to accurately reflect the coverage. McEntee will submit revised ILC calculations, looking to reduce coverage. The application was carried to March 2.

RICHARD J. TKACH 000 Kenilworth

Bl. 66, Lot 15 Appl. #06-476

Building Envelope RA zone

Richard Tkach displayed a copy of the site plan submitted with the application. He is plannng to construct a single family house on the property. Chris Richter pointed out that the additional 8 ½ feet required by Boonton for the right-of-way along Fanny Road has to be considered. We have to plan on a 50 foot right-of-way. What do we have left, enough to construct a house? Tkach – we’d have to move the rear setback 8½ feet toward the Borough property. David Kane pointed out the blind spot in the road and the safety of a driveway in that area. Kane – how can you construct a house on that limited envelope? The concept drawing you submitted is an internet design, not something that would necessarily fit on this lot.

Richter – you would need to get a topo survey. Your building envelope could be reduced to 17 feet in depth. I’m not comfortable approving a ‘railroad’ car lot.

Kane – Fanny Road, at this location, presents a safety issue. There needs to be more of a footprint.

Richter – even if we were to grant the building envelope variance, you would need to come back for variances; you could not get a garage in that envelope.

Jill Gotthelf asked where the two storm drains empty onto the lot. Tkach pointed out the locations on the survey, noting that neither would drain into the proposed building envelope.

Bolo – where do you envision a driveway? Tkach pointed to an area 25 feet from Melrose.

Richter – the Boro land runs along the south side of Fanny Road. That is not Boonton property.

Mike Sullivan asked if Tkach had a wetlands engineer look at the property. Yes, but I don’t have a document; he said, based on the elevation, there are no wetlands. Richter - it is more than road runoff, the whole north side of Fanny runs into this property.

Tkach – the water could run off the road into a swale and drain to the left of the property. The water is not going into the storm drain, it just runs into the property. I’d like to remove the guard rail and have a stone wall.

Board members said they wanted an official report regarding the existence of wetlands. Mike Sullivan said that the applicant has indicated that there are no wetlands or transition areas affecting this property. The Board can require presentation of any additional information.

The hearing was opened to the audience: Dave Dawson, 15 Melrose and the closest house to this property, said he had the opportunity to walk through this property. There is skunk cabbage and a lot of water on this property. The Borough has been cooperative and has installed drains. Runoff is only one issue, water cascades off the hill and flows down Melrose. Also, this intersection is the most dangerous in town. The concept of straightening the road is too dangerous. This whole area is a corridor for wildlife, particularly on this property. It would be dangerous to consider an envelope that is 40% smaller than required. We have to consider open space; otherwise, our town would look like Bayonne.

David Lewis, 26 Melrose Rd. - my wife and I have several issues with this proposal. I agree that an envelope so much smaller than required is out of character for Mountain Lakes. The safety issue is significant. The YMCA is one of the most dangerous intersections in Mountain Lakes. There is a blind curve coming from the YMCA. I would expect the Board to get a formal wetlands evaluation. I agree that there is a lot of wildlife on the property.

Fred Kantor, 81 Hanover Road, reviewed his experience with municipalities and courts and said he is not required to be sworn in. Michael Sullivan said Kantor does not have to be sworn in if he is only asking questions. Kantor said that the attorney is out of order. Sullivan – if you have a question, please ask it. David Kane suggested that Kantor should just get to the point.

Kantor – I have been a resident for 22 years and I follow the notices. I do see that the rules are altered where a hardship is evident. A gentleman here has purchased the property. There is no hardship. This is a beautiful spot on a very visible road. I see no reason to alter the well thought out rules of the town. This is a difficult site, on a 35 mph road; it is often wet and icy at that area. To approve a narrow railroad lot would be out of character for the town.

John Fila, 523 Essex Avenue - when you purchased the property, were you told it was a buildable lot? Tkach - The building envelope is actually larger than required.

Fila agreed with the other speakers; I grew up in this area and I can attest that the property is a very wet area. I played there and had mud stains up to the knees of my clothing. Richter – asked if there was any representation, when you bought the lot that it was nonconforming? Tkach – Yes, I was aware I would need the variance.

Douglas Beck, 44 Melrose, said his property also has a stream going through it. The land is higher on the Boonton side. On my side, water percolates out of the soil. Your lot is loaded with ferns and water loving vegetation. I am also concerned about the safety of the property; any driveway on that road is dangerous. The Board should not compromise granting a variance just because he owns the property. He should have done due diligence. If, one lot at a time, you make exceptions, you will compromise the appearance of Mountain Lakes, especially on corner lots. I am also concerned about the impact of granting variances to the property value of the surrounding area.

I don’t think a compelling reason has been given to allow development of this property.

Dawson added that taxes paid on that piece of property were probably not equivalent to taxes paid on a building lot because it was never considered a building lot.

Jim McCrudden, resident at 11 Yorke Road and president of the neighboring YMCA, presented

a group of photographs taken today. Exhibit O1 – photo of the property from Fanny Road to point out the bumps and bruises on the guardrail to note how many cars had slid into it.

O2 – noting the slope; if you were to remove all the trees on this lot the runoff would be that much more significant.

O3,4,5 – to demonstrate how much water came off the hill into the YMCA parking lot, requiring installation of additional drains. If all those trees were removed, the runoff into the ‘Y’ property would be insurmountable.

O6,7,8 showed a drainage ditch and erosion. McCrudden said that exhibits O3 & O4 were taken in 1999; the rest of the photos were taken today.

McCrudden testified that the water starts coming off the hill at the beginning of Essex and continues to the south. Even on the driest days of summer, you can hear the water coming into the property. We looked at proposing a land swap to expand our parking but the study showed wetlands all the way up to Melrose. Therefore, I recommend that a wetlands study be done before any approval. McCrudden referred to Dick Wilcox (prior owner of his own house) and Wilcox’s efforts and success in preserving open space.

Kantor – it is said by our founders that this is a nation of laws; he asked if this body was run by Roberts’ Rules of Order. Chair Gotthelf asked if Kantor had a specific problem with the way this meeting is run. Kantor said that Mr. Kane’s interruption was an insult; he requested and received an apology. Richter – we are here as a service to this community. Do you feel that your approach is antagonistic? Kantor - No. Richter – we all live together and try to do the right thing. We don’t have to cater to bylaws; we are fair and polite, we think we’re doing the right thing.

Board comments: Moody – the issues raised by the neighbors are valid. We can’t act on this without a concept of what’s going to happen on the property. The safety is an issue, plus wetlands.

Kane – what is the issue of the guard rail; is it ours to rule on or does it belong to Boonton? It was installed for a reason. Regarding adjacent property being Borough land, we can not make exceptions for that reason. We don’t know the future of any Borough property. That is irrelevant.

Richter – the drainage is not the applicant’s fault. Whether his proposal would exacerbate the problem is the issue. The building envelope is the issue we are asked to deal with. You have to show us your plans for grading, topography and how you are going to develop the lot. You could probably solve the drainage issue; the bigger problem is Boonton. How are you going to get a house in this envelope? Tkach – without a rear variance, it would be a very strange house. This application is based on Mountain Lakes’ guidelines.

Attorney Sullivan – if we took action, the Mountain Lakes Council would have to act on the right-of-way. We could make it a condition of approval. Richter – we need proper planning on this road. If we are going to take action, we have to consider the 8 ½ feet. The road needs curbs and a sidewalk. Gotthelf – we have to include/consider the 8 ½ feet. I don’t know where the concept of straightening the road has come from, but that’s not likely to happen; it would impact the speed.

Richter – a 50 foot right-of-way is not unusual, especially on a heavily traveled road like this.

Bolo – safety at this area is paramount; I’ve seen many cars in the ditch. I travel this road every day. Tkach – the drainage ditch is obstructed, that’s why water settles on the road.

Gotthelf asked for a poll regarding the right-of-way.

Art Max – we should consider the 8 ½ feet but I would oppose the application based on the depth of the envelope. Bob Sheasby – the building envelope is not an optional aspect of our zoning regulations. The rectangular shape requirement is deliberate, it is part of the Master Plan. Bolo also wanted to require the additional 8 ½ feet. Kane – I have mixed feelings because we have occasionally given people the opportunity to build on a nonconforming envelope. Gotthelf asked Michael Sullivan if we have to make a determination on the 8 ½ feet?

Tkach – the property predates Mountain Lakes. The Geiger family owned this for over 100 years. Fanny Road cut through the original property. This was established by Belhall as property in Mountain Lakes.

Richter – a 27 foot depth envelope is realistic; 18 ½ feet is not realistic.

Max – we could approve, reject, or have the applicant come back with another proposal.

C. Richter – with an additional 8 ½’ setback and no building adequate envelope, this is not a buildable lot. I am not inclined to approve it.

David Kane moved to disapprove the application, seconded by Bob Sheasby and carried by 7-0 roll call vote. Tkach asked for direction. Gotthelf – the Board decided that the property does not warrant a variance to be a buildable lot in Mountain Lakes. Richter – you can come back with any variances that you want, but the Board’s position is that it is not a buildable lot.

Tkach – you did not give me the opportunity to comment after the public comments.

Sullivan – the Board has taken action. Moody – you can resubmit with a specific plan and certification of the wetlands and drainage issue. Gotthelf - you can resubmit a complete application that addresses every one of the points of concern of the Board.

Tkach asked if an easement from Melrose was possible. Attorney Sullivan said that would have to be approved by Council.

Carried to 3/02/06:

ELISE COLLINS 204 Boulevard

Bl. 80, Lot 24.01 Appl. #06-474

Front, side RA zone

Other Matters:

Michael Sullivan reminded the Board that the Municipal Land Use Law has been amended. There is a mandatory education requirement for Board members. The course would be not more than 5 hours and must be taken within 18 months of the final approval. The NJPO and others may be certified to conduct the course.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Marge Jackson, Secretary