MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

           May 3, 2007

 

Chair Jill Gotthelf called the meeting to order and read the Open Public Meeting Advertisement:  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:  Gotthelf, Richter, Bolo, Kane (arr. 8:00), Sheasby, Sullivan, Max       

Absent:  Moody, Rusak            Also Present:  Attorney Michael Sullivan           Council Liaison – none

 

REVIEW OF MINUTES:  The minutes of the April 5 meeting were approved by voice vote.

 

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:      

GRACE MURTHA                               Appl. #07-504

Bob Sheasby made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Chris Richter and carried by 6 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.

 

            BRUCE & KATHLEEN MERRITT    Appl. #07-505

Chris Sullivan made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Bob Sheasby and carried by 6 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.

 

            RICH & JEANNE SQUEGLIA           Appl. #07-506

Chris Richter made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Chris Sullivan and carried by 4 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.

 

            TOBIA & LISA IPPOLITO                Appl. #07-509

Peter Bolo made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Chris Richter and carried by 6 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.

 

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS:  All applicants were sworn in by Chair Gotthelf. 

 

Carried from April 5, 2007:

MARIE & PAUL CONLIN                 50 Pollard Road

Bl. 110, Lot 11                         Appl. #07-508

Side                                                     RA zone

Marie Conlin was accompanied by architect Joan Nix.  Nix explained that a large renovation was being undertaken to this house.  The only variance required was for the right setback at 14.2 feet.  The required 25’ setback line runs through the house.  This area has an eight foot plate height.  The rest of the house has a nine foot plate height.  They would like to remove and replace the roof, raising it one foot; there would be no change in the footprint.  They are also requesting a new masonry stair in the rear, at 18.2 feet from the property line.

A board of three photographs, taken by Nix in March, was marked as Exhibit A1.  Chris Richter inquired about the second floor porch.  Nix said it would be open with no screening.  There currently is a one story garage in the rear of the house. 

There was no comment from the public or the Board.  Peter Bolo made the motion to approve, seconded by Arthur Max, and carried by 6-0 roll call vote.

 

New applications:

                        RANDY BENDER                              19 E. Shore Rd.

                        Bl. 23 Lot 17                                        Appl.#07-510

                        FAR, ILC, side & front                        RAA zone

Randy Bender was accompanied by architect Tom Chauvette.  Attorney Sullivan pointed out that we had six Board members present and offered them the option of carrying the application or presenting the application and hope that an absent member will listen to a recording of the hearing.  They chose to proceed with the presentation.

Architect Chauvette described the application with an enlarged colored version of the site plan, Exhibit A1, prepared by Lakeland Surveying 4/10/07.  Proposals include:  expansion of the kitchen wing by 99 square feet, removal of the kitchen roof, expansion of the 2nd floor by 561 square feet to include the existing footprint, add a covered porch to the rear with a deck above it, add a roof over the front entry, and add a 16 x 8 foot screened porch on the right.  Chris Richter asked whether they had measured the lakefront setback relative to the lakefront exception rule.  Chauvette said he had approved it visually but did not have the exact setbacks of the neighbors.  He described the request for the front setbacks, none of which would extend closer than the existing nonconformity.  The sideyard addition creates a variance request for 21.2 feet.  In the RAA zone, the FAR limit is 13%.  The existing ratio is 18%; with the proposed renovations, the ratio request is 24.56%.  He pointed out that this is an undersized lot and it is the first lot in the RAA zone.  The adjacent lot 20 is a larger lot but has a ratio of 25.46%.  To the left, the property is in the RA zone and has an existing FAR of 29%.  He pointed out that the size of this house would be less than the neighboring houses.  The existing ILC is 27.95% and they are proposing 32.3%, created by the expansion, covered deck and screened porch.  Lot 20 has 24% ILC and lot 15 has 30% ILC.   Ms. Bender is willing to remove the existing flagstone patio, bringing the ILC request to 30%.  They believe that the proposals will improve the house and neighborhood and will not be a detriment.

Board comments:  Arthur Max – I tried to visualize this project; the arguments are rational but I believe these improvements would overwhelm the lot.  Bob Sheasby – we are bound by the rules of the zone; it would be hard for us to look at the hypothetical calculations.  I couldn’t consider this level of relief.  Chris Richter – I lived across the street from this property for 11 years; I considered buying the house but didn’t for the reasons you are here today.  It makes sense to make the second story useable.  You can’t use the house to the left as an example because all that work was done illegally.  I understand that you are sandwiched between two monster houses.  There is some room to improve the house, but you should not expand to the right outside the existing footprint.  I’d like you to look at the lakefront exception and verify that you are not violating it.  Peter Bolo – I see a very dense neighborhood here.  This cannot be mitigated by two houses that are too large for their own lots.  You are already over the limits for the RA zone.  I would prefer that you improve what’s there.  Chris Sullivan – you are asking for 90% over the FAR limit; I have more of a problem with the ILC on property next to the water.  I couldn’t approve this.  David Kane – I presumed this was an attempt to get feedback from the Board because the numbers are too far over the limit.  Jill Gotthelf – I agree with Chris Sullivan about the sensitivity of ILC.  Frequently, if applicants request a high floor area, they bring their coverage down.  We are overbuilding in this State and need to be more sensitive to flooding problems.  You could also consider dry wells to remediate the coverage impact.  The ordinances were written to prevent overbuilding on small lots. 

There was no public comment.  Bender requested carrying the application to June 7.  No additional notice is required unless additional variances are requested.  Bob Sheasby pointed out that this is not a negotiating session; I will not be in a different frame of mind next month.  Jill Gotthelf suggested that they demonstrate why it is not possible to meet the code.  The motion to carry the application was made Chris Sullivan, seconded by Chris Richter and carried by voice vote.  The applicant retained the exhibit.

 

   JEFFREY & KELLY AROESTY        23 Fernwood Pl.

   Bl.101 Lot 85                                       Appl.#07-511

   FAR, ILC, front, 2 sides, slope RA zone

Architect Seth Leeb described the application.  Jeffrey Aroesty described that they are in the process of expanding their family and need more space.  Leeb showed the plot plan A1.  This is a complicated project because the house sits on a pie-shaped property.  Existing nonconformities are the front yard, right, left setbacks and ILC.  We attempted to minimize the impact on the neighbors, 21 Fernwood on the left, the Bird Sanctuary on the right and the lake in the rear.  It was important to maintain the open space.  A2 was a board of 7 photos taken by his office.  Leeb marked A3, 4 photos of the house to demonstrate the difficult location of the garages in creating a functional plan.  The existing garages are on the lower level.  The house is currently set back 16.1 feet.  The current driveway goes all the way around the house.  The existing ILC is 27.1%.  We have moved the driveway to the left side of the house.  This plan reduces the left sideyard conformity from 19’ to 14’.  This creates more open space and an increased view of the lake. If we were to move the house back, it would impact the view from 21 Fernwood.  The existing gazebo along the lake will be renovated but the patio will be removed.  Jill Gotthelf noted that there is no way to do these renovations without all the structural walls coming down.  Leeb said they will maintain the basement and first floor.  Gotthelf said that it bothers her to have this presented as an addition when it is basically a new house.  The existing nonconformities are irrelevant.

Gotthelf asked if they considered  putting an addition on this house.  Leeb explained why they did not propose knocking the whole house down; it is a pie shaped property, placing the house back presents other issues.  Leeb acknowledged that they would also need to notice for a building envelope variance.

Attorney Sullivan suggested that if the application is carried, it could be renoticed and you wouldn’t have to pay another application fee.

Leeb conferred with his clients.  They will carry the application to the June 7 meeting.  Leeb retained the exhibits.

 

Other Matters / Public Comment:    Bob Sheasby asked to discuss a matter but Michael Sullivan said it was not within our jurisdiction.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.                                              

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

           

 

 

                                                                                                                        Marge Jackson, Secretary