MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES
December 3, 2009
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 8, 2009. 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 12, 2009 and made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Cohen, Richter, Abate, Max, Dietz, Rusak, Gallo, Bolo Absent: Sheasby
Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan
REVIEW OF MINUTES: Chris Richter made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 3rd meeting. Arthur Max provided the second; the minutes were approved by all members by voice vote.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
JOHN & JENNIFER ZIEGLER Appl. #09-559
Mark Cohen made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval; Chris Richter seconded the motion. The resolution was passed by a vote of 7 to 0 by members Richter, Cohen, Max, Rusak, Dietz, Abate and Gallo.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: All applicants and professionals were sworn in by Chair Bolo.
HESS CORPORATION 62 NJSH Route 46E
Bl. 5, Lot 1 Appl. #09-560
Use, Signage B Zone
Donna Jennings, of Wilentz, Goldman and Spitzer, a licensed attorney in the state of New Jersey presented the application for Hess. Jeffery Spalt, a professional engineer with Dynamic Engineering of Lake Como, NJ was sworn in to testify. Donna Jennings explained the application was for a prep-area to sell Dunkin Donuts in the Hess Express. They were also there to present some sign changes to advertise the donuts.
Jeffery Splat explained Exhibit A-1, sheet SP-1 of the submitted site plan. The lot is a 1.89 acres parcel with 8 fueling positions and a 1860 square foot store with16 parking spaces. There would be no exterior changes to site; all the changes will be made in the store. Exhibit A-2 was a colorized version of sheet FL1, the proposed and existing floor plans .Ultimately the applicant wanted to replace the current coffee service island and reconfigure a drink area to include a donut prep site to finish the donuts. Exhibit A-3 a colorized version of sheet EL1 showed the front elevation of Hess building. They would like to replace the current signs on front windows with Dunkin Donuts signs. Approximately 1/3 of the front windows would be occupied by the graphics. Michael Sullivan mentioned the site had a vertical light post signage that was already approved in 2002. Chris Richter asked if the window signs were previously approved before, Jeffery Spalt said they were not.
Peter Bolo asked the board if there were questions for the engineer. There is a metal container on property that does not belong to applicant. Chris Richter asked them to remove the container. He also asked if the new prep-area would increase the number of employees. Donna Jennings called on Andy Lautenbacher the Permit Manager for Hess to answer the question. Mr. Lautenbacher stated the number of employee were 3 to 4 any time during the day, 2 working the pumps, and 2 for the retail store. We will not be increasing the number of employees. Mr. Richter asked the applicant to redo the application to reflect the total number of employees. Mary Dietz asked how someone would purchases the donuts. Andy Lautenbacher stated the employees loaded the display case with donuts and the customer served themselves.
Attorney Donna Jennings then questioned Andrew Janiw a licensed professional planner from Beacon Planning and Consulting Services. Ms. Jennings asked him if he had visited the site; he had. He explained Exhibit A-4a was a photo board with 8 photos of the exterior site dated 10/20/09 and 11/24/09. Exhibit A-4b was 4 photos dated 11/24/09 and 10/20/09 showing the interior of the store. The applicant was here to propose an interior reconfiguration and are were requesting a use variance. Mr. Janiw stated the original 1984 resolution allowed for the addition of a convenience store. The only new operation they would be adding was a prep area for the donuts. The new signage they proposed on the building was really a sign change. They planned no new exterior signage. Hess was looking to bolster the sales in the store by changing the donut brand to Dunkin Donuts. The use change would serve the general welfare. Introducing a new co-brand to the site would not create new traffic and would not be a new operation. The use is suited for area and site. The improvement of existing space would have no detrimental impact. The zone does permit retail space such as a convenience store.
Mr. Janiw stated the signage would display the new product and would screen the interior of the store work area and storage. The signage would not be back lit nor in any way neon.
Peter Bolo asked if there were questions from the board for the engineer. Pia Abate was concerned about the safety of cooling racks and oven. Andy Lautebacher explained the racks and ovens are not accessible to the public. The oven is convection and does not get hot on the outside. Ms. Jennings said they could add a swinging gate to keep people out of the work area.
Mrs. Abate questioned the signage on the property. Mary Dietz asked if they could confirm the sign size for the window signs. Vinyl applied to the window contains graphics that cover 37.5 sq. feet of the window rather than 68.1 sq. feet. Arthur Max questioned the denial letter from the Borough Zoning Officer, Mr. Hagberg, when they just changing their supplier. He also asked if there were any outstanding issues with the DEP. Mr. Lautenbacher assured the board they were in complete compliance. Chris Richter asked about signage on the highway for those passing by. Donna Jennings stated they just wanted to change out the existing signage. Mr. Lautenbacher said they could replace a panel on the existing light post sign to let the driver know Dunkin Donuts were available at the site. Pia Abate asked if there would be flags on the site that say Dunkin Donuts; they are not planned.
There were no Public questions or comments.
Peter Bolo asked if there were comments from the board. Chris Richter said the window signs served no purpose and were not attractive. Placing Signs on Route 46 to provide notice to those traveling east provided safety. The window signs never were approved. Donna Jennings referred to Exhibit A-3. they would leave the approximately 1’ 3” x 4’ 2” Dunkin Donuts logo signs on windows and the applicant would replace the free standing signs with a Dunkin Donuts sign. The sign would be a maximum of 20 sq. feet. It was requested that the plans be revised to reflect restroom sq footage and the swinging gate in work area.
Mark Cohen made a motion to approve the applications with the revisions requested. Chris Richter provided the second. The application was approved by a vote of 7 to 0 with members Bolo, Richter, Cohen, Max, Rusak, Dietz and Abate voting in favor.
MICHAEL & NANCY BUCKLEY 131 Lake Drive
Bl. 101, Lot 54 Appl. #09-561
Front & Side Yard, FAR RA Zone
Board member Pia Abate recued herself from hearing the application since she resides within 200 feet of the property. Michael Buckley was sworn in as the applicant. Larry Korinda, a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey would be presenting the application. The architect informed the board of a correction to the application. The existing FAR should be 19.95% rather than 19.25% as noted on the application. They were also looking to improve the Side and Front Yard Setbacks.
Exhibit A-1 was a plot plan created by Dykstra Walker, of Lake Hopatcong, dated November 16, 2009. The one story wing on the right of the house would be staying and the terrace on left hand side would be removed and replaced with a new screened porch and second floor Master Bath. The applicant would be putting a smaller portico on the front of the house, replacing the enclosed Foyer. There is no garage on property so they propose adding one that would accommodate 2 cars under the deck. The lake shore setback is calculated at 96.4 feet.
The applicant proposed a loop driveway in the front of the house that is smaller than most on the street. The current driveway is very dangerous. They would need to remove 1 tree that is a street tree. The old survey show the house originally had an old loop driveway and currently has old curb cuts. They will also be removing 2 additional trees to provide light; the trees are not stable and are leaning into the street. Fox Hollow provided the homeowner with a report detailing the poor condition of the trees. The applicant will file the required application for tree removal and remove all the trees. Exhibit A-2 showed aerial photos of the site and the neighbor’s homes. Exhibit A-3 showed 8 photos of existing house.
Currently the basement is not accessible. Exhibit A-4 showed the Basement foundation plan; which was not in original packet. They are putting the garage in basement along with a mud room. Exhibit A-5 showed the1st floor plan already submitted. The plan creates a terracing effect adding a 4 foot strip on the 1st floor. The new deck area is smaller deck measuring only 370 sq. feet. Exhibit A-6 is the second floor plan. They will be doing a new Master Bath and additions to back bedrooms. Exhibit A-7 is the attic plan where they propose 2 additional bedrooms and a bathroom. They will be removing the front dormer and replacing it with a smaller dormer. Mary Dietz asked what the heights of the walls were in the attic; they are 5’ 8”. Exhibit A- 8 showed the 4 elevations of the house.
The FAR will be reduced by 1.61%, 44 sq. feet on the 1st floor, the 3rd floor would decrease 204 sq feet, and 2nd floor would increase by 401 sq feet. They were tried hard to reduce the massing of the house. Mary Dietz asked why the calculations for the Area of Basic House Footprint were different in two places in the application and would like a clarification. The ILC is 1800 sq. feet and the FAR is 1867 sq. feet. Larry Korinda said they will be gutting the house. They will take down 50% of foundation and 1st floor; they will be removing the 2nd and 3rd floors.
Arthur Max asked if the architect had given any thought to removing the Powder Room on the right side. Mr. Korinda said if he did the homeowner would have no front hall closet and other locations do not work for the Powder Room. Mr. Max pointed out they would be tripling the sq. footage of driveway and did not see the safety of the loop driveway. Mark Cohen stated that since the house was almost a tear down how come they could not find the additional sq. footage to meet the FAR requirement.
Peter Bolo asked if there were any questions from the public. Jane Jewel, 133 Lake Drive, was concerned about her view of the lake. She would see the garage and second story decks from her house. Janice Gewirtz, 127 Lake Drive, calculated the sq. footage and it was not the same as Larry Korinda’s. She asked the board how the garage fits into the calculations and how the FAR decreases if you are increasing the sq. footage.
Peter Bolo asked if there were any opinions from the Public. Pia Abate, 138 Lake Drive liked the front vestibule and asked if it could stay. Michael Buckley felt the house is close to the street and the vestibule was too large. He was concerned with getting in and out of the property safely.
Peter Bolo asked for comments from the board. Mary Dietz thought it was great they were keeping the character of the house. She was concerned the FAR was not meet even though they were basically rebuilding the house and the ILC was not consistent in the application. Larry Korinda said he would confirm the numbers as a condition of the application. Chris Richter asked if they could build a house of the same size if they knocked it down and started over. The architect said yes but you would have a FAR problem because you have to count the garage. Mark Cohen saw the width of property as a problem. Pat Rusak asked if they could have a smaller driveway and was concerned about the FAR. Chris Gallo agreed with Mr. Cohen. Peter Bolo was concerned with the view corridor to the lake for the public. Chris Richter said the FAR request is very small and asked if they could do something about reducing that.
Peter Bolo asked if the applicant would like to proceed to a vote. They asked if they could carry the application to January 7, 2010. Mark Cohen made a motion to carry the application to the January 7, 2010 meeting; a second was provided by Mary Dietz. The carry was approved by a voice vote of the board.
Other Matters / Public Comment:
Janice Gewirtz stated her concerns about the side yard setback of 25 feet on lake front property. Peter Bolo explained that the view corridor for the community should always be a consideration when the board hears an application for a property located on the lake.
Ordinances – Mary Dietz asked where the new ordinances stood. She asked if each member of the board could get a copy of the new ordinances.
There were no additional comments from the public.
Chris Richter made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Arthur Max provided the second.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Shaw, Secretary