MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

October 2, 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, Cohen, Kane, Sheasby, Rusak, Max, Dietz         Absent:  Moody, Richter

Also Present:  Attorney Jon Drill                   Council Liaison – Doug McWilliams

 

REVIEW OF MINUTES:  The minutes of the September 4 meeting were approved by voice vote.  

 

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS

DAVID & NOREEN O’BRIEN                Appl.#08-535

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

 

DENIS & BETTE O’SULLIVAN Appl.#08-543 

Mary Dietz made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Bob Sheasby and carried by 4-0 roll call of eligible voters.

 

PUBLIC  HEARINGS:  All individuals testifying were sworn in by Chair Bolo.

SCOTT & AMY DAGES 121 Midvale Rd.

Bl. 129.03 Lot 11                           Appl. #08-544

Front (2), side                                RA zone

Applicant Scott Dages testified that they have lived in this house for 7 years, their family is growing and they seek to add a third bedroom to their home.

Architect Richard Nelson described the variances requested:  two front and one sideyard variance because their property is located at the corner of Midvale and Roger Road (access to Midvale Park.)  Nelson presented Exhibit A1, a colored version of the site plan.  The average front yard setback required is 57.23’.  Since there is a paper road to the left of the house, they are using the front setbacks of the two adjacent houses to the right.  The neighboring house to the left, across Rogers Road, is set back 39.6’.  If that measurement were considered, they would not need the front yard variance.  Arthur Max pointed out that the Board had approved variances for the house to the left but those alterations have not been made.  To the right, the next house is set back 51.7’.  The second house to the right is set back 63.29’ from Midvale Road.  The pre-existing side setbacks are 23.45’ and 23.25’.  

Exhibit A2 was the proposed 1st floor plan with the colorized, shaded area showing an open front porch and slab on grade to provide street appeal and coverage for the front door.  The footprint of the house will not change with the exception of the front porch.  They will keep the ceiling height at 8 feet.  Exhibit A3 was the proposed second floor plan adding two modest rooms.  There will be no third floor, just pull down stairs to an attic area.  Exhibit A4 was a front elevation of the proposed home.  It will be well within the height limitations.

Board questions:  Pat Rusak – is there a plan for the basement?  Would the garage add to the FAR?  Nelson – no, it is a basement by definition and no changes are proposed.

 

Public questions or testimony:  none.

Mary Dietz – this is a small house on a small lot.  The road seems to have been created after the subdivision.  You are sideloading the addition to the left.  Did you consider moving it to the other side?  Nelson said they did consider it but it wouldn’t work well because the addition on the right has cathedral ceilings and would not support a second story.  Nelson said that the stairway location was the most simple, logical solution.

Mark Cohen – I have no problem; the changes are within the foundation of the home, the additional three feet in the front is not a problem.  Bob Sheasby and Peter Bolo agreed; it is a simple, attractive solution.

Bob Sheasby moved to approve the variances, seconded by David Kane and carried by  6-1 roll call vote (Dietz denied.)

 

DAVE & LYNN ALBERTS          98 Crestview Rd.

Bl. 42 Lot 25                                  Appl. #08-545

Front, side                                      RAA zone

Architect Larry Korinda presented the application, describing the house as an original Belhall Tudor built in 1930.  The proposed project would expand the garage to current size standards and create a second story family room.

The existing front setback is 34.5 feet, proposed setback for the garage addition is 37.83 feet, required setback in this zone is 40 feet.

Exhibit A1 was a color rendered site plan.  Korinda described the unusual off-center placement of this house on the property.  The neighbor’s house to the left is set back 66 feet from the side line, so there would be an 82.7 foot distance between the two structures.

Exhibit A2 was an aerial Google photograph to demonstrate that the surrounding structures are much larger than this proposal.  The house to the left is elevated so there is a substantial grade change between the two properties.  There is also a significant vegetative buffer between the properties.  Exhibit A3 was a photo board, showing the house and buffer between the two properties.  A4 was the color rendered first floor plan, showing the proposed addition.  The existing garage is 18.2 x 18.2’; the proposed addition would increase the dimensions to 22’ 6” x 23’ on the inside.  Korinda testified that this is not large by today’s garage standards.  Over the garage they propose to construct a playroom and bathroom area.

The front elevation was introduced as Exhibit A6 to demonstrate that the existing architectural style has been continued and enhanced in this plan.  A7 showed the side elevation, A8 the rear elevation. 

In summary, the house is one of the smallest in the neighborhood; the expansion is minimal and the style enhances the structure.  Korinda testified that their three children’s toys and bicycles occupy at least one-half of a garage bay and they need two full bays for their cars.  Albert testified that they are seeking consistency with the existing style of the house and hope to add additional storage space in the garage and living space above the garage.  He pointed out that the house is off-set on the property and is bordered by Borough property on the side and rear.  The closest measurement of the existing house is 34.5’ from the street.

Arthur Max asked if they looked at alternatives; it is irrelevant that the closest house is situated 90 feet away.  Did they consider shifting the garage forward?  Alberts said that the width of the garage was the critical factor for allowing space for the cars.

Mary Dietz said it is customary for Belhalls to have a single car garage and many people live with that.  It is clear that this structure is undersized for two cars.  I have a problem increasing the side setback nonconformity.  You could expand it to the rear and have space for storage of other items.  Korinda contended that the proposed garage dimensions are reasonable.

 

From the public:  Bruno Vandame, 111 Lookout Road, lives next to this house; he looks at it every day and asked the architect if he looked at other parking schemes because this is a violation of the code.  Korinda said the parking arrangement has not changed.  To locate the garage elsewhere on the property would have a greater impact and would be awkward considering the layout of the house.

Vandame asked if the cars are currently parked in the garage.  Albert said no, in the winter we park one car in the garage, the other bay is filled.

Bob Sheasby asked if it is a hardship that you couldn’t fit both cars in the garage?  Korinda said that the applicant did not claim a hardship based on the garage size, only on the placement of the garage.

Wendy Vandame said the garage is next to a large tree.  How do you plan to enlarge the garage without disturbing the tree?  Korinda testified that the trees were not threatened and would be protected during construction.

Bruno Vandame said he is an architect registered in NJ, NY and France.  Vandame introduced Exhibit V1, 9 photographs to show adjacent properties with parking out of sight of the street.  Vandame contended that this lot could accommodate a garage that would not be visible from the street.  He believes that the garage was not part of the original structure and that space could be a magnificent garden area.

In response to Mark Cohen’s question of whether he objects to this application, Vandame said he thinks there are other options.

Barbara Joyce, neighbor across the street at 90 Crestview Road, said she enjoys the Alberts’ children.  She has no problem with the garage and family room proposal.  She thinks it is important to have a family room and it is important to have your children at home.  She thinks this proposal would be a good addition to this neighborhood.

Board comments:  Bob Sheasby – the location of the house is difficult; I would prefer to make the garage only large enough to be functional.  Relocation is not practical.  I am empathetic but not sympathetic to expanding the garage this much.  Dietz agreed, you can fit a two-car garage in a 20 foot square.  You could fit one car in the garage and allow plenty of storage space.  Mark Cohen – at 20 feet, you are already too close to the side yard line.  We should cherish the space between houses.  I hope you will reevaluate your plan.  Pat Rusak – 16 feet is too close to the property line.  Max and Kane agreed.  Bolo applauded their effort to modernize their home.  Would you like us to vote or will you return with an alternative plan?

Korinda said they would like to carry the application to the next meeting.

Attorney Jon Drill summarized:  it appears that the Board will not agree to a garage larger than 20’ by 20’; you could still construct a room on the second floor.  Albert repeated out that their Belhall home is situated in an unusual location on the property.  Since they moved to this house in 1997, at least four of the eight neighboring houses have been torn down and replaced.  He doesn’t think this is a viable option for their property.  Their hardship is the location of the house.  Korinda asked if the Board would agree to expand the garage if they were to stay within the existing frontyard setback nonconformity.

The application will be carried to the November 6 meeting.

 

JAMES & DONNA SEIJAS         61 Bellvale Rd.

Bl. 84 Lot 29                                  Appl. #08-546

FAR, side                                       RA zone

Donna & James Seijas were accompanied by architect Larry Korinda.  Larry Wiener introduced himself as the attorney for Jeff Marshall & Elizabeth Mazorra, neighbors at 55 Bellvale Road.

Korinda described the applicants’ proposal to demolish the detached garage at the right rear corner of the property and construct an addition and new garage to the right of the house.  Korinda described the existing and proposed setbacks.  Exhibit A1 was a colorized version of the existing and proposed site plans.  There is a wrap-around terrace on the existing house.  Korinda noted that the existing driveway covers 4433 square feet, adding to the excessive impervious coverage of 33.7%; the proposal would drastically reduce the coverage to 24.25%, eliminating the ILC nonconformance.  The original Hapgood house had a porch and they propose reconstructing that porch.  They also propose construction of a new garage and relocation of the driveway to reduce coverage and eliminate the hazard of exiting the driveway at an intersection.  The additions will be stepped back to soften the impact.  This change would provide a back yard for the children and improve the view for all adjacent neighbors.  The existing garage is in disrepair and is not built on a foundation.  If a new garage were constructed at the existing location, a foundation would impact two significant trees.

The proposed sideyard setback variance is mitigated by substantial reduction of ILC.  The garage proposal is one-story and there is a substantial evergreen buffer between the proposed addition and the neighboring house.  They propose filling the eleven foot gap in the buffer with new rhododendrons.

Exhibit A2 was a five photo board showing the garage and paving.  Exhibit A3 was five photos, including an aerial photo demonstrating that this house is substantially smaller than surrounding houses.  The first floor plan was marked as A4.  They propose adding a new kitchen, family room, mudroom and powder room plus a covered front porch.  A5, second floor plan, includes a new master bedroom suite.  The 3rd floor includes a guest room, playroom and bath.  The third floor space (A6) is included in floor area calculation.  If the 3rd floor were not included, the FAR would be 15.4%.  The house with the proposed addition is comparable to the neighbors’ houses and smaller than the adjacent Tripucka house.  Exhibit A7, front and right elevations, showed the height of the existing and proposed buffer plantings.  A8 showed the rear elevation.

In summary, Korinda said that paving on the property would be reduced 57%.  Alternative plans to relocate the garage would also require variances and would be less appealing to the neighbors. 

Board Comments:  Dietz – did you explore tucking the garage under the house and not requiring a variance?  Korinda – we didn’t think that was realistic because it would require significant soil removal.  Bolo agreed; it would create a valley between the two houses.  Bolo asked:  did you consider a flat roof or placing the garage in the rear of the house?

Korinda distributed Exhibit A9, alternative detached garage studies A, B & C.  Each alternative required Improved Lot Coverage over 25%.

Mary Dietz asked for a topographical survey.  Korinda said the property is relatively level.  Attorney Drill clarified that the proposed garage is not accessible from the house.  Dietz asked what could be done to get the FAR in compliance.  Korinda reiterated that, if the 3rd floor did not have the two dormers, it would be less than 40% of the second floor and would not be included in floor area.

Kane challenged the comparison of the existing sideyard setback from a terrace to a 15.33’ setback to a garage.  Max and Cohen pointed out that there is enough property to expand the house and construct a garage without such large variances.

Sheasby – there are other solutions although the diagonal nature of the lot poses challenges.

From the Public – neighbors Jeffrey Marshall & Elizabeth Mazzara were represented by Attorney Larry Weiner.  Weiner asked if Korinda had discussed the garage with the neighbors.  He said he had not, but the current and former owners had heard objections about the existing garage from the neighbors.  Weiner pointed out that the proposed garage would be significantly closer to his clients’ house.  Korinda acknowledged that, if the new garage were one bay, they could construct it within the setbacks.

Elizabeth Mazzara, adjacent neighbor at 55 Bellvale Road, identified the houses from an aerial photograph, Exhibit O1.  She testified that they have no objection to the existing detached garage.  After hearing all the testimony, she still objects to this proposal.  O2 was a set of nine photos.  Mazzara said that there is a feeling of space between the houses in the neighborhood.  This proposal would infringe on the light, air and open space and would impact our property value and quality of life.  We did construction on our own home and were able to accomplish this without any variances or impact on the neighbors.  I feel that this proposed garage would impact our quality of life.

Seijas said that she had reached out to her neighbors; others have responded and supported this plan.  Mazzara and Marshall did not respond.  Seijas wants to maintain the Hapgood structure, not tear it down.  I would be happy to repair the garage if it were possible because I think it is charming.  Seijas asked if Marshall would like them to rebuild the garage in the same location and switch the driveway location.  Marshall said she would have to think about it.

Peter Bolo suggested that the applicant consider the feedback from the Board and come back with an alternative.  Arthur Max suggested that they could create a fine home and stay as close as they could to the ordinances.  You would still need a variance to rebuild the garage.  Korinda pointed out that the garage entrance would have to be switched to the front if the driveway were moved to the right side.  Sheasby stated that he is more concerned with maintaining the character of the neighborhood.  Kane said he would like to see a topo.

Weiner pointed out that the floor area ‘D’ variance requires a super majority (five affirmative votes.)

The application will be carried to the November 6 meeting.

 

Other Matters / Public Comment:

The public was reminded of the five minute limit to any individual’s comments.  There were no comments. 

Peter Bolo asked if any members were interested in being on the Joint Ordinance Committee.  Mary Dietz and Arthur Max agreed to serve.  Peter will check with Chris Richter, who was a member of the previous committee.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

 

                                                                                            Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

 

                                                                                    Marge Jackson, Secretary