MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

January 7, 2010

 

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

Also Present:  Attorney Michael Sullivan

 

REORGANIZATION:  

Election of Chair – Pia Abate made a motion to appoint Peter Bolo Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Arthur Max provided the second. The motion was approved by a 7 to 0 vote.
Election of Vice Chair– Pia Abate made a motion to appoint Chris Richter Vice Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Arthur Max provided the second. The motion was approved by all members voting in favor 7 to 0.

Appointment of the Board Attorney, Michael Sullivan, Appointment of Secretary, Cynthia Shaw,

Designation of Official Newspapers, The Citizen and The Daily Record, and Determination of the regular Meeting Dates as follows:

February 4, 2010                                August 5, 2010

                        March 4, 2010                                     September 2, 2010

                        April 1, 2010                                       October 7, 2010

                        May 6, 2010                                        November 4, 2010

                        June 3, 2010                                        December 2, 2010

                        July 1, 2010                                         January 6, 2011

Mary Dietz made a motion to adopt the resolution naming the Attorney, Board Secretary, newspaper designations and meeting dates for the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the 2010 calendar year.  A second was provided by Chris Richter. The resolutions were approved by all members voting in favor 7 to 0.

Re-adoption of the By-Laws- Mark Cohen made a motion to accept the Zoning Board of Adjustment By-Laws with one correction.  The By-Laws will now list a quorum as 4 members. A second was provided by Chris Richter. The resolution was adopted by all members voting in favor 7 to 0.

 

REVIEW OF MINUTES:   Mary Dietz made a motion to approve the minutes from the December 3rd meeting with one correction. Pat Rusak provided the second; the minutes were approved by all members by voice vote.

 

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:

    HESS CORPORATION                                                     Appl. #09-560

 

Mark Cohen made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval; Arthur Max seconded the motion. The resolution was passed by a vote of 7 to 0 by members Bolo, Richter, Cohen, Dietz, Max, Rusak, and Abate.

           

PUBLIC HEARINGS:  All applicants and professionals were sworn in by Chair Bolo.

 

Carried from December 3, 2009:

 

MICHAEL & NANCY BUCKLEY                                        131 Lake Drive

Bl. 101, Lot 54                                                             Appl. #09-561

Front & Side Yard, FAR                                                          RA Zone

Pia Abate recused herself from hearing the application since she lives within 200 feet of the applicant. Mary Anne Connors Brennan, an Attorney located in Boonton, had reviewed the application and had joined the application midstream.  The original application was now amended and the board had been presented with revised plans.  The applicant wanted to add a garage since there was not one and wanted to provide a safer driveway.  The new design had reduced the FAR and created a smaller structure.  The proposed screen porch has been minimized and the original front porch would still be replaced by a portico.  The original FAR was already non-conforming.  The Front Yard Setback for the house was already too close to the street.  And the Side Yard Setback was already an existing non conformity. 

Larry Korinda, the Architect, reworked the plans to decreased the FAR to 17.34% which was 1% less than originally presented. The ILC was now 24.56% because they reduced the driveway coverage. They improved the Left Setback which was now 26.3 ft rather than 25.6 feet.

Larry Korinda explained the original difference in the Area of Basic House Footprint pointed out at the last hearing. In the original application the ILC (1800 sq. ft.) was calculated at the basement and the FAR (1867 sq. ft.) was taken at the 1st floor, resulting in the footprint difference of 67 sq. feet.  Exhibit A-9 showed the Board the new site plan. They now had a smaller garage and a driveway that was reduced in size.  They had planned to plant a landscape buffer between themselves and the neighbors on the left.  Exhibit A-10 was the landscape plan prepared by Fox Hollow.  Exhibit A-11 showed the new Basement foundation plan. The pulled the garage in 8” from the rear, reduced the size of the deck and made the Mud Room smaller.  Exhibit A-12 showed the 1st floor screened in porch which was now smaller by 8” in one direction and 4”in the other. The Family Room extension was now 2 feet rather than the 4 feet originally planned.  The right side of the house would still exist, it will include the Powder Room, the side entrance and closet.  Exhibit A-13 showed the second floor.  Larry Korinda pointed out the Master Bath had been reduced 8” in one direction and 4” to the other.  With the new design the back bedrooms stick out less than originally planned. Exhibit A-14 showed the new Attic plan.  They removed the decks and reduced the size of all the dormers.  Exhibit A-15 showed the new elevations of the house from all sides. Exhibit A-16 showed the site lines to the lake from the street as they exist today and the view that would be increased from the clearance for the driveway.  The applicant cut 132 sq. feet on 1st and 2nd floor and reduced the mass and size of the house. 

The Chair asked if there were any questions from the Board. Mary Dietz mentioned the FAR was about 66 sq. feet over, did they consider reducing it to comply. Larry Korinda stated the only place left to reduce would have to be the left wing and that contained the service entrance. Chris Richter pointed out the rear elevation was 4 stories as the house exists today and is non- conforming.  He asked the applicant if they were eliminating this non conformity with the new design, they were.  Pat Rusak asked what runoff the dry well took care of, it would take care of run off from the leaders.

There were no Public questions or comments.

The Chair asked for Board Comments. Pat Rusak was happy with the changes.  Mark Cohen stated the Buckley’s should be commended for the reduction but thought the house was still to large for the property.  Chris Richter was happy with the new plans.  Mary Dietz thought the additional width of the breakfast area could have moved in to the existing house.  Peter Bolo thanked them for the reductions, the improved view corridor and keeping the service area as it was.

Arthur Max made a motion to approve the application with the revisions made to the original plan, including the additional landscape design.  The second was provided by Pat Rusak.  The application was approved with a vote of 7 to 0 with members Bolo, Richter, Cohen, Dietz, Max, Rusak and Gallo voting for the application.

 

PATRICIA KACZKA                                                             86 Intervale Road

Bl. 130.2, Lot 22                                                                      Appl.  #09-562

Side Yard                                                                                 RA Zone

 

Patricia Kaczka, of 86 Intervale Road was sworn in to present her application. Michael Sullivan reminded the Board that at the May 7, 2009 meeting they had granted 2 variances, ILC and a north Side Yard Setback of 13.9 ft.  The Applicant was now looking for Side Yard Setback of 11.8 ft. The Applicant was looking for 2 additional feet. 

Patricia Kaczka explained that at the original hearing the Application was correct but the drawings she had done were wrong.  Exhibit A1 -5 were photos of property showing the side deck.  She stated she did not get a copy of the original resolution.  She then removed Exhibit A-3.  The old application stated 11.8 ft. as the Side Yard Setback but the drawing stated 13.9 ft.  The Board asked to see the original application and drawings.  Michael Sullivan asked the applicant what the oral testimony was. On May 7th she said the deck would be the same size as the patio.  She also confirmed the measurement of 13.9 ft. on the plan when giving her statement.  Pia Abate said she remembered the application was to replace the patio with the deck of the same dimension. 

Peter Bolo asked if there were any questions from the public.

Bob Purnell, 17 Dole Drive, Montville, New Jersey, asked if the contractor looked at the resolution.  No, she did not get a copy to show him. Gordon Edwards, of 26 Ronarm Drive, spoke next his house is located on the north side of the applicant. The original patio was on grade and now that the deck was elevated, he felt it was going to disturb his view in the back yard.  His property elevation is lower than the applicants. When the deck is completed it will be 8’ to 8.5 feet higher than the grade of his property.  Exhibit O-1 was a letter from Mr. Edwards to the Board dated November 23, 2009.  Mr. Edward read his letter which stated he never was given notice.  Patricia Kaczka stated she had served the neighbor in person.  Michael Sullivan confirmed the applicant can serve someone in person. Mr. Edwards stated Mrs. Kaczka did come to his door and told him about the new deck and that the applicant did not give him a copy of the notice.  Peter Bolo asked Mr. Edward what you would do to remedy the situation. He would like it to be no closer to his home and at ground level.

Thomas Kaczak was sworn in and explained he removed the patio bricks himself.  The outline of the former patio was still there.  He mentioned the vegetation along the property line had not been maintained for 15 years.  If the Edwards were going to maintain it now they would be willing to do additional plantings to block the view of the deck.  Arthur Max asked if the area of the deck and it dimensions were the same as the patio.  Mr. Kaczka If you look at the photograph Exhibit A-6 you can see a view of the patio before the deck addition. Chris Richter scaled the drawing at 11’.8” rather than the 13’.9” on the application, the patio scaled 11’ X 14’.  Patricia Kaczak explained she would have preferred to put another patio in if she did not have an ILC problem. Mr. Edwards thought the patio was 11’ x 11’ and the deck appeared high in the air because their property was 2 feet lower than the applicants.  Mr. Kaczka reminded the Board an inspection was done for the footings. 

Mark Cohen felt the board should maintain the original resolution. Chris Richter said the Board has to look at this like it was the original application.  He would grant have granted the 11’ 8” as the existing layout.  Arthur Max stated if there was an objection at the original meeting the Board would have come to a compromise such as the screening offered, a deck always is more visible than a patio.  Mary Dietz said the Board originally approved 13.9 ft. Setback. We should keep to the original resolution and ask for the screening.  Chris Gallo asked Mr. Edwards what the board could do to alleviate his concerns.  Peter Bolo reminded him that the deck would not be lowered and they could do plantings to cover the deck view.  The applicant would be willing to plant an evergreen screen. The evergreen material would be planted east west along the perimeter of the deck.  Mark Cohen confirmed the options were a deck with screening or a deck reduced in size.  Mr. Edwards preferred a deck that was smaller.

Peter Bolo pointed out in the old resolution the deck at the same size as the patio. Arthur Max asked the applicant what she would prefer, she would prefer to screen. 

Chris Richter made a motion to approve the application and require the applicant include screening with evergreens along the length of deck and 6ft in height, Arthur Max provided the second. A vote of 5 to 2 approved the application with members Bolo, Richter, Max, Rusak and Abate voting in favor.  Members Cohen and Dietz voted against the application.

 

 

Other Matters / Public Comment:

 

Annual Report – Chairman Peter Bolo noted the lower number of applicants this past year.  Mark Cohen made a motion to accept the Annual Report as presented; a second was provided by Pia Abate. The report was accepted by a vote of 7 to 0 with all members voting in favor.

Michael Sullivan pointed out the new absentee standards for Boards enacted on October 26, 2009.  

The Board Secretary told the Board the Borough was looking for a New Zoning Officer.  This was confirmed by their new Board liaison, Councilwomen Ellen Emr.

Mary Dietz expressed her concern with the Board approving applications not prepared by professionals.  She felt the Board needed to be more diligent in these cases and needed to require a more complete application with proper dimensions.

 

There were no comments from the public.

 

  Mary Dietz made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mark Cohen provided the second.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:50pm.  

                                                                                                           

                                                                                                            Respectfully submitted,

           

 

                                                                                                Cynthia Shaw, Secretary