MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES
June 5, 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 made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Bolo, Richter, Cohen, Moody, Sheasby, Max, Dietz Absent: Kane, Rusak
Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan Council Liaison – none
REVIEW OF MINUTES: The minutes of the May 1 meeting were approved by voice vote.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
PIERRE & JACKQUELYN BAY Appl.#08-534
Jim Moody made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Bob Sheasby and carried by 4-0 roll call of eligible voters.
BLAKE & PAULA ANDERSON Appl#08-536
Chris Richter made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Bob Sheasby and carried by 4-0 roll call of eligible voters.
JEFF & VIRGINIA CASSIDY Appl.#08-537
Jim Moody made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Bob Sheasby and carried by 3-0 roll call of eligible voters.
Chair Bolo asked whether the July meeting, originally scheduled for July 3, should be moved to July 17. Chris Richter said he would not be available the 17th but other members would be. Jim Moody moved to cancel 7/03 and reschedule the meeting to 7/17, seconded by Mark Cohen and carried by voice vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
All individuals testifying were sworn in by Chair Bolo.
New application:
ANN BLANDA 10 N. Glen Rd.
Bl. 58 Lot 18 Appl.#08-539
Front RA zone
Ms. Blanda described her plan to enclose the front steps to her house. It would add only an additional 48 square feet of floor area; the portico with roof structure would add 46 square feet. Blanda testified that there is no clearance between the three doors in the entryway. The Cape style house has a flat front facade. Bob Sheasby asked how this would benefit the community. Blanda said this proposal would enhance the property and make the entrance more practical. The front setback would be 31.17’ from N. Glen Road. Chris Richter asked whether the set back of the houses on either side was measured; Blanda said no. (The front setback exception would not apply to this request because there are only 2 houses on that block.) Mary Dietz asked about the roof line change. Blanda said it was only for aesthetics, it would not increase floor area because we are only enclosing the steps, not breaking any framing. Dietz also questioned the setback of the roof overhang and the bay window. Attorney Sullivan noted that both projections may extend over the setback line by three feet.
From the Public: John Lester, adjacent neighbor at 125 Boulevard said, “From the aesthetic perspective, this would be an improvement; I see no problem with granting this variance.”
Fred Kantor, 81 Hanover, declined to be sworn in. He said it was illegal to swear in Mr. Lester; opinion is not testimony. He is concerned that the large number of variances granted creates a helter-skelter impact. This house is already closer to the road than allowed. When I bought my house, I knew what I could do with it and I have never requested a variance. This is an illegal meeting. You did not adopt rules of order at your reorganization meeting annually as required. You can’t shut me up. This meeting is out of order.
Board comments: Jim Moody – aesthetically, this proposal is an improvement. Cohen agreed with Moody. Dietz – the house is close to the road; the entryway does need a cover but you should consider not projecting so far into the front yard. Arthur Max – it is an improvement but I’d like to see how the house sits relative to adjacent houses. Sheasby – this is a difficult lot but I’m looking at your written testimony and I believe this improvement would be positive. I would not vote for this without information about the neighboring houses. I am not sympathetic with going that close to the road.
Richter – this is a minor variance and is supported by the MLUL; I would support the approval with a requirement that the applicant provide setbacks of adjacent properties.
Bolo – this would be beneficial to your property and to the community. I don’t think the proximity to the street would be apparent. I think this is a good solution.
Chris Richter moved to approve the application subject to the applicant providing setbacks of adjacent properties; Jim Moody seconded the motion, approved by 5-2 roll call vote (Max & Dietz denied).
Carried from May 1:
DAVID & NOREEN O’BRIEN 57 Briarcliff Rd.
Bl. 78 Lot 35 Appl.#08-535
ILC, front & side RA zone
Architect for the applicants, Richard Nelson, described the application for ILC, front & side setbacks. Nelson described the existing and proposed bulk dimensions. The variances are sought to add a garage to the property. The existing substandard garage is too small and does not access the house. The addition of this garage creates the improved lot coverage request. The lot is smaller than other lots in the neighborhood. There is open space in the adjoining park to the east and the lake. Exhibit A1 was a colored version of the proposed site plan dated 10-30-07. A2 showed the proposed basement plan including the garage, dated 3-08-08. The front and sideyard setbacks are triggered by the requested reconfiguration of the attic. The setbacks are required for the roof line. It could have been created within setback requirements but this plan is more aesthetically pleasing. A3 showed the attic plan relative to the setback lines. Both setback nonconformities exist. A4 was the proposed front elevation, dated 3-08-08. Chris Richter asked about the height of the house. Nelson said it was 32 feet. From the lake, it would be 37.7’, where 38’ is allowed. In both cases, the height meets the ordinance limits. Bob Sheasby asked why the basement wasn’t considered a story. Nelson said that, if the 1st floor is greater than 6 feet above the lower story, it is considered a basement. When you average the grade all around the house, it is still considered a basement. Sheasby – this is an undersized irregular lot and the structure seems to be oversized. Bolo asked if Nelson considered extending the current garage. Nelson said the garage floor is only 1 ½ feet above the lake level and the ceiling is only six feet tall. The standard height of a garage is usually 7 ½ to 8 feet.
The ridgeline height is 37’ 7”, from the front 32’ 10”, where 35’ is allowed. Richter thought the ridgeline wasn’t calculated accurately. Nelson said he could modify the roofline of the third story if necessary. I know I could make it conform.
Richter – the hurdle here is the ILC. The concept of pushing the garage under the house has been done but we know that it is much more expensive. Nelson repeated that the basement floor is only 1 ½ feet above the lake. If I were to cut the driveway I’d be below the lake level. If I were to lower the garage floor, the slope of the driveway would be more than the allowed 15% and a car would probably bottom out. The garage is undersized; if I were to extend the garage to the front, I would exceed the front yard setback. Nelson said they would offer to construct drywells to offset the coverage. He had looked at different configurations but the front setback would be compromised.
Dietz – there is an alternative to minimize the ILC by having the garage slide under the library above, to re-use some existing structure.
Bolo noted that this proposed garage would block a view corridor of the lake from the street. Nelson said they would be open to a reconfiguration. Bolo asked for testimony of why they needed the lakeside colonnaded porches that add to the volume of the house, even though they do not increase the floor area. Nelson said the porches did not need variances because they are within the setbacks, but they would add charm to that side of the house.
Max – we’re all concerned about the mass of the house. He noted that the application states this would be modest relative to other homes in the neighborhood. He would like to see evidence of that.
Sheasby said he has a strong view of this; the house next to this is a monstrous structure that worked through the ordinances because it is a large lot. These owners knew that this was a substandard lot; this is not a hardship case, this is not modest relative to the size of the lot. This is a small lot next to a park.
No public comment. Bolo asked if the applicant would like to have the Board vote. Nelson said they would like to try to rotate the garage and reduce the roofline. Richter asked for clarification of the grade plane. Board members agreed that they did not have a problem with the overhangs. Bolo asked Nelson to be mindful about coverage, particularly on lakefront property.
The application was carried to the July 17 meeting by motion of Mark Cohen, second by Chris Richter and unanimous voice vote.
Carried from May 1:
DEBRA & MICHAEL GOLDFISCHER 46 Wilcox Dr.
Bl. 86 Lot 38 Appl.#08-538
FAR & front RA zone
Goldfischer and architect Matthew Smetana presented this as a new application so that all Board members were eligible. Smetana stated that their three objectives were: improve the aesthetics of the house, to raise the roof and use the space over the garage and to achieve this without variances. A photo board of the house was marked Exhibit A1. The front setback is currently nonconforming at 38.1 feet to the steps. The average frontyard exception requires a setback of 55.2’; it seems large because one adjacent house fronts on Morris Ave, creating a hardship. The proposed addition would be built over the garage footprint. The proposed balcony over the front entrance would bring the setback to 41.5’. Existing FAR is 14.8%, this proposal would bring it to 17.46%. We explored other alternatives to stay within 17% FAR. Pushing the roofline down would have created a squatty looking structure because the garage level is so much lower than the house and would not provide a reasonable amount of living space in the new room.
Richter asked for clarification of the FAR. The existing space above the garage is not accessible, so it is not included in floor area. To use the space above the garage and keep the floor area within 17%, we could achieve only a very narrow space, not large enough for a room and it would not provide the aesthetic improvement to the facade. The stair access to that space occupies a large portion of the room. The proposed room would provide much more functional space. Smetana said the area in the revised roof gables over the front door would not be included in floor area. It is double framed over the existing roofline. There is no living space, it is just for aesthetics. The revised height would be 32.3’. The board of three possible plans was marked as Exhibit A2.
Neighbor Christina Koch, 7 Wilcox Drive, said she represents many neighbors who favor this proposal and they agree that this would be an aesthetic improvement. Six homes on the block have been updated and this is a modest proposal.
Board comments: Jim Moody – this is a deminimis variance; you responded to our request for clarification and I approve your application. Mark Cohen agreed, noting that it is not a significant variance request. Mary Dietz said you could improve the aesthetics and create a room without the floor area variance. If you have a solution that is that close, you should stay within the ordinance limits. Sheasby agreed with Dietz. Richter – I don’t like the gable lines on the conforming plan. For 93 square feet I think the improvement in aesthetics overrides the variance requirement. The frontyard setback variance is not an issue because it is triggered by the Morris Avenue house. Bolo agreed that the .46% FAR overage is outweighed by the benefits and he agreed with the neighbors. Sheasby – the house sits high on the hill and this façade would create a castle like appearance; with the large gable it is only going to get higher. Having recently experienced another house on Wilcox that got a variance and then added a pool, I suspect that this won’t end here.
Jim Moody moved to approve the variances as applied, seconded by Mark Cohen. The motion failed by 4-3 roll call vote because 5 affirmative votes are required for a D variance (Sheasby, Max, Dietz denied.)
Attorney Sullivan told Goldfischer that he could request that the Board act only on the C variance. Chris Richter moved to approve the frontyard setback variance for a plan generally consistent with the elevation on A2 and with conformance of FAR at 17%, seconded by Jim Moody. Sheasby said he is not comfortable voting on a bifurcated application if the specific plan isn’t before us. Richter noted that submission of revised plans would be an issue for the Construction Department, not this Board. The motion to approve the front variance was approved by 6-1 roll call vote (Sheasby denied).
Carried from Dec. 6, 2007 to July 17, 2008:
REINO TRUUMEES 137 Lookout Rd.
Bl. 42 Lot 9 Appl.# 07-526
ILC, side, soil moving permit RAA zone
Bob Sheasby moved to carry the application to July 17 on the condition that Truumees re-notice the neighbors within 200’. Truumees also needs to grant an extension of time for the Board to act. Arthur Max seconded the motion approved by voice vote.
Other Matters / Public Comment:
The public was reminded of the five minute limit to any individual’s comments.
Fred Kantor reminded the Board that he is here on a matter of process and that he is knowledgeable on procedures. He recalled that he was here two years and 2 months ago, was arrested and subsequently declared innocent by Judge Korpita. He requested that the Board censure Mr. Richter for his comments about Kantor’s lawn decorations. You adopted rules of order in May, 2006 but you have not readopted them in your reorganization meeting. Therefore you have been operating illegally. I request that you reorganize and hold your meetings properly. You seem to discuss applications and approve on the merits of conformity, conformity to what? I wish to be judged by the content of my character, not by my choice of gables, the color of my house or lawn decorations. Dr. Bolo reminded Kantor that his five minutes had expired.
Michael Goldfischer expressed his objection to Bob Sheasby’s comments during the two hearings. This is the second time you have made comments based on where I live. Because I live on this street you assume I would go on and on with my property. You have commented negatively on other properties in the neighborhood. I think you should be careful before you attack my character. You should base your comments on my application, not on my address or my name.
Sheasby replied that he was totally impersonal. He said he talked about the property, his experience in this town and what has happened in the past.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Marge Jackson, Secretary