MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

March 6, 2008

Chair Peter Bolo called the meeting to order and announced:  Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act by adoption of the annual notice on January 3, 2008.  Said resolution was mailed to The Citizen and The Daily Record, filed with the Borough Clerk and posted on the bulletin board in the Borough Hall on January 7, 2008 and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.  

ROLL CALL:

Present:  Bolo, Richter, Kane, Sheasby, Rusak, Max, Dietz              Absent:  Cohen, Moody

Also Present:  Attorney Michael Sullivan

Council Liaison – none

REVIEW OF MINUTES:  The amended minutes of the January 31 meeting were approved by voice vote.

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:  

RACHELLE BOYHAN                  Appl.#08-528

David Kane made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Bob Sheasby and carried by 5-0 roll call vote.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: . 

   All individuals testifying were sworn in by Chair Bolo

    Carried from Dec. 6, 2007 to May 1, 2008:

REINO TRUUMEES                      137 Lookout Rd.

Bl. 42 Lot 9                                     Appl.# 07-526

ILC, side, soil moving permit            RAA zone 

David Kane made the motion to carry the Truumees application to the May 1 meeting, seconded by Bob Sheasby and approved by voice vote.  Chris Richter requested that the applicant provide topographic maps of pre-existing and current conditions on the property.

New applications:

    NIGEL & MARGARET SMITH     10 Hillcrest Rd.

            Bl. 96, Lot 24.02                              Appl.#08-529

            Front, ILC                                        RA zone

Nigel testified that he and his wife moved here in July with their four sons; they were not sure if they would stay here but have decided to stay and want to give more room to their sons.

Architect Matthew Smetana described the proposed addition to expand the perimeter of the house with two additions and a small covered porch, adding one bedroom and reconfiguring the mudroom.  The roofline, stone veneer and exterior styling will match existing conditions.

A variance is requested for improved coverage, proposing 6669 square feet where 6765 square feet exists under the current conditions.  The front yard setback along Bellvale will be maintained at 40 feet, whereas the front yard setback requirement created by the average of two adjacent houses is 90.45’; Mary Dietz suggested that the application be modified to have the frontyard exception of 90.45’ noted on section 3 of the application.  Exhibit A1 was a 10 photo board of this and nearby homes in the neighborhood. 

Smetana described the reductions in ILC:  a portion of a walkway in the rear of the home, the entire walkway leading to a porch in the front and another walkway will be removed for a net reduction of 94 square feet.  Part of the proposed addition will be over existing coverage. We will be matching grade to the existing conditions.  Contractor Steve Phillip testified that a property survey disclosed that the ILC exceeded the 25% limit while they were preparing the application for construction permits.  Smetana noted that they are reducing the ILC, bringing it closer to compliance and aesthetically bringing the addition into compliance with the house.

Board comments:  Arthur Max – I calculated that you are adding 2600 cubic feet to the lot.  It is hard for me to believe that there is no change in the FAR.  Smetana – this is at the basement level and does not qualify as floor area.  Richter – I don’t have a topo on this property so I can’t do the grade plane analysis.  Richter asked, if the basement addition is fully exposed, should it be considered floor area?  Smetana – less than 50% of the perimeter is exposed.  Max – if this is approved, I would like to see this addition included in floor area.  Max asked for more testimony as to why the benefits outweigh the detriments.

Smetana – the addition is partially under ground, there is less than 2000 cubic feet being added.  There are five bedrooms.  Smith said his mother visits frequently from the U. K.  Sheasby asked if there were any existing space in the basement that could accommodate a bedroom.  Smith – there is no space with windows and egress. 

Kane asked whether some driveway area could be cut to reduce the 29.7% coverage.  Phillip suggested that the turnaround area could possibly be reduced.  Smetana pointed out that much of the coverage is created by retaining walls.  Sheasby asked if there were any variances granted with the 1998 subdivision (none).  Pat Rusak asked for a full set of construction drawings to determine if the FAR was calculated correctly. 

Public questions:  Joan Nix, 11 Hillcrest, asked why there was no documentation of the Planning Board approval with this application.

Nix commented that she has seen that it is not unusual for additional paving and coverage to be added without approval; she thinks that this addition adds bulk to the house. 

Dietz – since FAR is not the issue, I think that ILC is an issue and the coverage should be brought down to 25%.  Richter – the addition conforms with the setbacks, the front yard is maintained.  From a pure Planning prospective, I have no problems with the addition.  This applicant is handicapped by the preexisting nonconformity, but should this applicant pay the price?  I don’t think so; his request is deminimus and total coverage is being decreased.  Sheasby – I am uncomfortable with approving ILC without information of how it got to this point.  Rusak – I don’t think it is unreasonable to reduce the coverage more than what has been offered.

Bolo – there is a benefit in reducing total coverage but that coverage was achieved unlawfully.  I think much of the driveway is unnecessary.  I would approve a small amount of ILC over 25%.  Would you like to have us vote or would you like to come back with an alternative plan?  Richter – there should be a plot plan on file that states 24.99% coverage.  Max – I have no problem with the addition but we need to address the coverage.  Do you use the front circular driveway?

Attorney Sullivan suggested that the applicant could agree to reduce the coverage this evening.

Nigel Smith requested that they could return with a proposal to reduce coverage; they asked that the application be carried to the April 3 meeting.  David Kane made the motion to carry the application, seconded by Pat Rusak and carried by voice vote.

Chris Richter requested a grade plane analysis.

Philip asked if seepage pits would help.  Richter – that would not change the appearance of improvements.

Richter asked for the original plot plan with ILC calculations from the construction department and the planning board approval of the 1998 subdivision.

The applicant retained the exhibit.

Other Matters / Public Comment:

The public was reminded of the five minute limit to any individual’s comments.   There were none.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

                                                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                Marge Jackson, Secretary