MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF
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, Moody, Sheasby, Max
Absent: C. Sullivan, Rusak
Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan Council Liaison – none
REVIEW OF MINUTES: The amended minutes of the May 3 meeting were approved by voice vote.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
MARIE & PAUL CONLIN Appl. #07-508
Peter Bolo made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Chris Richter and carried by 5 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: All applicants were sworn in by Chair Gotthelf.
Carried
from
RANDY BENDER
Bl. 23 Lot 17 Appl.#07-510
FAR, ILC, side & front RAA zone
Applicant Randy Bender and architect Thomas Chavette testified that, based on the previous hearing, they have substantially changed the application and are not relying on testimony from the previous hearing; all Board members present will be eligible to vote on this application.
Chavette
acknowledged that there had been a concern about the lake front setback. He referred to the plot plan dated
The existing floor area ratio is 18.03%; we are proposing 22.22%, an increase of only 2 square feet on the main floor, and 561 square feet on the second floor.
We have reduced the impervious coverage request to 22.81% from the existing coverage of 26.43% by reducing the kitchen wing, the covered deck, stone patio, plus some of the paved driveway area. We have also reduced the scale of the structure by lowering the roof.
Bob
Sheasby asked how Chavette could justify the request relative to the standards
for the RAA lot. Chavette presented
testimony regarding the unique situation of this lot. The adjacent lot is in the RA zone with a
minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet.
This is an undersized lot at 13,440 square feet, with a minimum lot size
of 22,500 square feet. Our requests are
still beyond the limits for the RA zone but we don’t feel that the size of this
house would be a detriment to the neighborhood.
The house would be 2986 square feet, considerably smaller than the
neighboring houses.
Chris
Richter asked about the slate patio in the rear yard. Bender testified that the patio no longer
exists. Bolo asked about the
nonconforming shed, there is no record of approval for that structure. Bender said that it is a cedar
Public Comments – none. Board comments: They have agreed to relocate the shed. We are looking at FAR of 22.22%, ILC of 22.81, front yard of 33.4’ (setback verification is required for the covered porch), plus the shed should be brought into conformity.
Peter
Bolo commented that the proposed FAR is very large but this is a relatively
modest sized house, less than the average in
Peter Bolo made the motion to approve the application with the condition of moving the shed to a conforming location and verification of the numbers; Jim Moody seconded the motion, approved by 6-1 roll call (Sheasby denied).
JEFFREY & KELLY AROESTY 23 Fernwood Pl.
Bl.101
FAR, ILC, front, 2 sides, slope RA zone
The Aroestys were accompanied by Architect Seth Leeb. They appeared in May but have significantly changed the proposal, have re-noticed and will not rely on previous testimony. Leeb pointed out that a cover letter to the Board revised the ILC request to 26.7%. Although this is a continued hearing, we are proposing a completely new design, to demolish the existing house and construct a new home on a new foundation. The variances required for this proposal are building envelope, front, left and right yards, ILC plus a driveway slope waiver.
Leeb
presented Exhibit A1, a series of diagrams to describe why the building
envelope and driveway slope variances are requested. The 55’ x 85’ envelope could not fit on this
piece of property, so some of the variances qualify as a C-1 hardship. He described how they positioned the proposed
house so it would not impede the lake view from the adjacent house on
Moving the house closer to the street reduces the ILC required for the driveway. This plan hides the garages from view of the cul-de-sac. The existing setback is 16.1 feet. The proposed setback is 19.2 feet to the porch; the house would have a front porch, so the mass of the house will begin at 26 feet. This is an irregular, pie-shaped property, limiting the available building envelope. The left setback existing is 9 feet, proposed is 16.2’; on the right side the request is 14.2’. Leeb said they have taken great efforts to save most of the trees, so they may need to remove only 2 or 3. The ILC request is 26.7%, including the house, driveway, parking space and patio. The slope variance request is 16.7%, paralleling the driveway slope of the adjacent house; it is required to access the garages under the house. We are also adding dry wells and have reduced the ILC from the existing 27.1% to 26.7%.
Referring to sheet A2, Leeb said that there is no space to park in the cul-de-sac, so they feel it is necessary to add the extra parking area on this property. If that parking space and the associated walkway is removed, the ILC would conform to 25%.
Richter expressed concern about the front and side setbacks. Leeb said he tried to reduce the driveway space and was sensitive to the location of the house relative to the neighboring house’s view of the lake, the slope of the driveway and access to the garage. We have strived to preserve the open space along the lake from the neighbors and from the bird sanctuary. Bob Sheasby asked what the square footage of the third floor and basement would be, even though it is not required for our calculations. Leeb said that the third floor would be less than 40% of the second. The footprint would be approximately 1000 square feet larger than the adjacent house. The A/C pads for three units would be no closer than the side setback request of 14.2 feet. Leeb said the units could be moved to the left side of the house, not on the side of the bird sanctuary. Sheasby asked about the height of the house from the lake. There are two lake sides, with proposed heights of 40 and 44 feet.
Leeb said that one dry well is shown on the plans but they can add as many as the Board requires. They are also looking into recycling the roof runoff for lawn watering. Kane asked about the impact of pushing the house back from the street. Leeb acknowledged that it would impair the lake views, increase coverage and driveway pitch, but it would still require the side variances. A terrace is much more attractive from the lake than a large deck. This is a small, dead-end street so there is minimal impact to the public to have a smaller front setback. Every house on this street is set close to the street. Jill Gotthelf asked if the front porch could be reduced. Leeb and Aroesty agreed that the scale could be cut back. Regarding the need for the third garage, Kelly said that they have a son who will be driving in two years. Since there is no place to park in the cul-de-sac, this request is not indulgent but necessary.
Public comments: none
Board comments: Max – is concerned about the overall design. This is not a conventional lot, so if you want a three car garage, five bedrooms, etc. you are creating a large house on a difficult lot. It may be that this lot cannot accommodate so large a house. If the house were not so large, perhaps it could have been moved back somewhat. Jill Gotthelf asked if the window wells were calculated in the ILC. Leeb said the window design was not definite. Sheasby inquired about the third floor screened porch. Richter noted that it has stucco sides, and adds to the mass of the house, he has never seen a house with three screened porches. The total mass impact of the house is larger than the floor area calculated and requested. Richter – I see opportunities to reduce the requested sideyard setback. With the reduced porch size and elimination of the parking space, the ILC will be within 25%. Leeb said that they can bring it to less than 25%, eliminating the ILC variance. They prefer to not give up the third floor porch; the boys could use that as a sleeping porch. Kelly’s mother may live with them; they plan an elevator and also hope to have more children. They want this to be a multi-generational house. Jim Moody agreed with Max and worries about the height of the house. Gotthelf – also bothered about the height from the lake; do you have flexibility with the rear of the house? Leeb - yes, we can raise the grade at the rear. Kane – variances go with the property; regardless of your family situation, you could sell it as soon as you get the variances. Also, we should not consider that the adjacent property is the bird sanctuary. Eliminating the parking spot softens the coverage impact from Fernwood. Then, only front and two side variances would be required. The front setback request could be lessened with the porch reduction.
Board concerns: Max - would vote against, it is possible to design a smaller house and move the house back. Bolo – would require removal of the screened porch on the third floor, otherwise he would support it. Richter – supports the planning arguments for the front and side variances but would like to slightly reduce the width of the structure; the house is too wide for the lot. Moody – side yard setbacks are inevitable, but you are asking for too much for this lot. Sheasby – this is a new house, so you could get closer to the bulk requirements; the bulk of this house is too great. Kane – your changes in the design are positive but I don’t know whether shrinking the size will improve the side setbacks. Gotthelf – my greatest concern is the appearance of height; she would be more comfortable with the house by increasing the grade in the rear. She feels that the lakefront view is more critical than that from the street. Leeb described that, from the lake, each level of the house is stepped back to reduce the impact of the height of four stories. Aroesty said that they do not have large hallways and the room sizes are modest, they tried very hard to limit the size of the house. Attorney Sullivan advised: if you carry, you may come back with revisions. If it is denied, you have to refile and come back with a substantially different proposal.
Richter – I’d like to see you revisit your plan and make the house narrower. The applicant requested to carry the application to July 5. Jim Moody moved to carry, Arthur Max seconded, carried by voice vote.
The Board took a two minute break.
New applications:
THOMAS & CHRISTINA PIROLO 38 Ball Road
Bl. 97, Lot 11.02 Appl.#07-507
Front RA zone
The Pirolos were
accompanied by architect Kim Hurley.
They propose an expansion of their kitchen.
Currently it is not functional; the breakfast nook seats five but they
have six in their family. They propose
to expand the kitchen and add a powder room.
They requested a frontyard setback of 39.1 feet for a 10 foot extension
aligned with the current setback.
Exhibit A1 was a colored version of the existing and proposed floor plan
with five photographs, A2 was a colored elevation. There were no Board or public comments. Jim Moody moved to approve, David Kane seconded,
motion carried by 7-0 roll call vote.
TODD & KIM TERHUNE
Bl. 123, Lot 5 Appl.#07-513
Front RA zone
Architect Marjorie
Roller described the plan to revise the front porch with a roof overhang to
improve the appearance and functionality of the entrance.
Roller presented
Exhibit A1, colored elevation and A2, photos of the house. Roller noted that most of the houses in the
neighborhood have covered porches. She
pointed out the unusual arrangement of a communal garage shared by four
adjacent properties. There was no public
or Board comment. David Kane made the
motion to approve, seconded by Jim Moody and carried by 7-0 roll call vote.
BRADLEY & SYLVIA RICKERT 14
Bl. 84, Lot 13 Appl.#07-514
FAR, ILC RA zone
Architect Larry
Korinda proposed a modest one story addition with variances for floor area and
improved coverage, decreasing the ILC to compensate for the slight FAR increase. A1 was a colored plot plan with four
photographs to show the size of neighboring houses. They will reduce 280 square feet (1.4%) of
driveway coverage to compensate for the FAR increase. ILC is high because of the long driveway to
reach the house set up on a knoll. The A2
floor plan demonstrated the modest request.
A3 showed the rear elevations.
The addition is well hidden, would add only 71 square feet to the
house. There is no garage that could
house a car; the only parking area is in the driveway. Board members asked if there were any other
paved area that could be removed.
Korinda said there is no additional driveway area that could safely be
removed. Public Comments: Jeff Marshall, 55 Bellvale, said that when we
built our house, we made an effort to stay within the requirements; he has not
seen the plan. It was pointed out that
plans are on file at Borough Hall. Korinda
described the proposal and
MARK & PIA ABATE
Bl. 47, Lot 28.01 Appl.#07-515
Front RA zone
Architect Larry Korinda described the frontyard exception requirement of 58 feet 6 inches, based on the adjacent properties. They propose removal of three-quarters of the existing terrace, retaining it only at the new vestibule area. This would reduce the frontyard nonconformity of the house to 48’ 7” to the new vestibule. Other additions are proposed but this modification creates the only variance required. Exhibit A1 was a colored version of site plan. A2 was a photo board of existing and neighboring houses. One photo showed the vista to demonstrate that the frontyard exception concept would not be impacted by this proposal. There would be a 2% decrease in impervious coverage. There was no public or Board comment.
The motion for approval was made by Jim Moody. Arthur Max requested that appropriate landscaping be installed where the patio is removed. The motion was seconded by Peter Bolo and carried by 7-0 roll call vote.
MATT & JOAN CHAVEZ 71 Crane Road
Bl. 114, Lot 26 Appl. #07-516
Side RA zone
Matt Chavez described their plan to continue
restoring the Hapgood style of this house.
The greenhouse is single pane glass, it is leaking and they have been
advised to remove it and restructure the space for a bathroom and study. The new structure will be stepped back from
the front of the house. Board members
questioned the calculation of the additional floor area on the third floor. Richter cautioned Chavez to check
calculations with the Zoning Officer. There
was no comment from the Board or public.
Peter Bolo made the motion to approve as submitted, seconded by Bob Sheasby
and carried by 7-0 roll call vote.
Other Matters /
Public Comment: The public was
reminded that there is a five minute limit to any individual’s comments. Fred Kantor,
The meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Marge Jackson, Secretary