MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES
May 6, 2010
Vice Chair Chris Richter 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 7, 2010. 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 11, 2010 and made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Rusak, Dietz, Max, Richter, Gallo and Willke
Absent: Bolo, Abate, Cohen
Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan
REVIEW OF MINUTES: Arthur Max made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 1st meeting. Pat Rusak provided the second; the minutes were approved by voice vote by all members.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
DAVID AND FRAN WIEN Appl. #10-566
Arthur Max made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval; Mary Dietz seconded the motion. The resolution was passed by a vote of 4 to 0 with members Dietz, Max, Rusak and Willke voting in favor.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: All applicants and professionals were sworn in by Vice Chair Chris Richter.
DUANE AND WENDY KOTSEN 151 Lookout Road
Bl. 42, Lot 1 Appl. #10-564
FAR, Front Yard Setback, Height
Major Soil Moving RAA Zone
The Board received a request from the applicant to carry their application to the June 3, 2010 meeting. A motion was made by Chris Gallo to carry the application and seconded by Pat Rusak. The Board voted to carry the application by an affirmative voice vote of all members.
New Applications:
RYAN GORMAN 37 Rainbow Trial
Bl. 13, Lot 3 Appl. #10-570
Front and Side Yard Setback R-1
Ryan Gorman, the homeowner, presented Exhibit A-1 a color photo of rear of his house. He was looking to install a railing in the back of his home for safety reasons. The yard drop off varies from 3ft and to 6ft across his backyard.
Michael Sullivan asked the applicant to confirm where north was on the drawing submitted. He also told the board the applicant did not need a front yard variance since that situation was already a pre-existing non-conforming condition. The applicant did however need to meet a combined side yard variance. In this zone the property must have side yard setbacks of 10 ft or a 30 ft combined side yard setback.
Chris Richter asked that the fence be placed within the confines of the house. He suggested the applicant place the fence on the left side .2 ft in from the edge of the house to obtain the required10 feet. On the other side of the yard the applicant could not move the fence in because of the sliding glass doors on the back of the house. Mr. Richter suggested moving the fence edge in as close as possible to the edge of the casing for the slider. Mary Dietz asked if they were planning on moving any dirt, no they were not. Chris Gallo asked if there were any gates in the proposed plan, yes there were two.
Vice Chair Richter asked if there were any questions from the public. Steve Monetti, of 14 Crestwood Drive, was interested in confirming the location of the fence. After viewing the drawings Mr. Monetti stated he had no objection to the location of the proposed fence.
Chris Gallo made a motion to allow the fence to be located 10 feet from the property line on the left side of the house and on right side the fence should be no less then 8 feet from the property line. The submitted plan must be revised with the new approved dimensions. Mary Dietz provided the second; the application was approved 5 to 1 with members Dietz, Max, Rusak, Gallo and Willke voting in favor and Richter voting against.
JOSEPH AND JENNIFER SIINO 96 Lake Drive
Bl. 102, Lot 50 Appl. #10-568
FAR, ILC, Front, Side Yard Setback R-A Zone
Joseph Siino and Jennifer Siino, who reside at 95 Lake Drive and Marjorie Roller, a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey, were sworn in. The applicant was looking to update the homes exterior look and improve the multi level interior. The homes lower level bedrooms do not have egress windows. They are proposing a 2nd floor addition and a foyer expansion to include a new covered porch. They would be removing the existing covered porch and a boxed bay in the rear of the house. Exhibit A-1 was two photos showing the existing front and rear elevations of the house. According to the Borough Zoning Officer the entire house has to be counted into the FAR calculation, including the basement. The “Basement shall be considered a story above grade where the finished surface of the floor above the basement is more than six feet above grade plane”; this basement is 6’5” above grade plan. Exhibit A-2 was a colored rendering of the front elevation of the new home design. The applicant would be changing the roof line and removed a lot of paving in the back of the house.
Marjorie Roller presented a summary of the variances they required. The FAR will increase from 22.1% to 25.51% where 17% is allowed, the ILC is decreasing to 30.49% from 34.26% where 25% is allowed and the front setback and the 2 side yard setbacks will change slightly because of the addition of stone work. She felt the application was a hardship because it is a multiple level contemporary home. It has no storage because it has no true basement or attic and the Master Bedroom was on the main level. The height of the house is 23.3 ft, well below the allowed 35 feet. Exhibit A-3 was a Surrounding Block Study that showed photos of the homes in the neighborhood. Most of the Hapgoods on the block are 3 stories tall. Exhibit A-4 was a photo of the neighbor’s home viewed from the rear of the applicant’s house. The architect felt they were reducing the mass of the home by cascading the roofs. The new roof ridge is only 4 feet taller than the existing ridge line.
Chris Richter took a look at the FAR calculation. The lower level was 1742 sq ft and does not include the garage, as it should. The second floor plan is 1257 sq ft plus an additional 273 sq ft for the cathedral ceilings. The upper story was 539 sq ft for the new addition over the garage. Exhibit A-5 showed a fictional house plan allowed by code. It showed what the footprint of the house would be with the addition of a 2 car garage. Mary Dietz asked the applicant why they did not turn the garage into one that could hold 2 cars and find another area to place the bedroom. Chris Richter felt some of the basement could qualify as a basement. Arthur Max thought this house was different enough to grant the variance for FAR.
Mr. Richter asked if there were any questions from the board. Chris Gallo asked if the roof line on right was cut back in the new design, yes it was. He also confirmed the height of new ridge was 23.3 ft while the existing was 20.5 ft. Arthur Max asked what the applicant could have done to meet FAR. Marjorie Roller said they could tear down the house or reroofed the house to create an attic space. She pointed out they were only added one room. Jennifer Siino said they were trying to get the house to look a bit more like the others in the neighborhood. They were also trying to move the Master Bedroom and Bath area out of the living space. Chris Gallo asked if they could have made the one basement bedroom into a garage and changed the guest room/office into the bedroom. Jennifer Siino thought that bedroom was the best one in the house and the office was too small for a bed. Chris Richter asked what was kept in the shed; the lawn mower and snow blower were kept there. Pat Rusak would like to see the applicant move the shed over behind the house; Chris Gallo agreed.
Mr. Richter asked if there were any public questions or comments. Phil Corbo, of 77 Ball Rd, confirmed the addition would be added over the existing garage. He thought the plan was tastefully done. Carol Jones, of 86 Lake Drive, thought the current plan would be better than what they had and will help them sell the house later. Vito Scarolla, of 100 Lake Drive, liked the house design.
Chris Richter asked if the framed shed could be move to within the setback, the applicant will move it. He also asked if they would remove the flagstone patio. Mary Dietz appreciated what the neighbors had said but thought the current footprint of the house was large. She thought they should lower the FAR. Chris Richter said he was comfortable with FAR because so much was below grade. Chris Gallo said he was concerned about the FAR numbers but when he actually looked at the house he saw the house was visually smaller than the calculations suggested. He did not like the location of the shed, but liked the renovation plans. Pat Rusak liked the plans. Tim Willke liked the reduction in ILC.
Chris Richter made a motion to approve the application if the applicant moved shed within building setback, keeping it the same size if rebuilt and removed the flagstone patio; Pat Rusak provided the second. The Board approved to application by a vote of 5 to 1 with members Richter, Max, Rusak, Gallo, and Willke voting in favor. Mary Dietz voted against the application.
WILLIAM BARRETT 34 Hillcrest Road
Bl. 96, Lot 9 Appl. #10-569
Front Yard Setback, Building Envelope
Height, Stories, Soil Moving R-A Zone
Vice Chair Chris Richter disclosed his wife was the realtor for the applicant and asked the Board as well as members of the public if they had any concerns with him hearing the application and if so, he would step down. William Barrett, of 6 Crescent Ridge Road Boonton, NJ, told the Board the sale of the home to him was not contingent on outcome of this Zoning Board application. Tom Dagger of the Historic Preservation Committee asked the applicant if he was so committed to the house sale why not wait until after the sale to come before the Board. Michael Sullivan explained that the applicant had the right to come before the board even though he did not currently own the property. Vice Chair Chris Richter asked the Board and the public if they had any objections or issues, hearing none the application was able to proceed.
Maryann Brennan, a licensed Attorney in Boonton NJ, told the Board the applicant planned to demolish the house and was seeking 4 variances due to lot conditions. The variances would be for the Building Envelope, Front Yard Setback on the Hillcrest side and Building Height and Stories on the Ball Road side. The lot is a through lot with frontage on Ball and Hillcrest Roads and the property drops 45 feet in elevation creating a steep slope situation.
The Front Yard Setback variance request is needed because of the flag lot next door. The plan is to build a new home in the same front yard setback location as the old home. The Height from the Ball Road side would be minimized and they will be decreasing the number of stories from 4 to 3 ˝ where 3 is allowed. The Side Yard Setback will be improved because the new home will be moved to provide more space between the neighboring houses. The ridgeline of the roof will be lower than the existing house. The applicant wishes to maintain the Hapgood look of the home and will be adding a two car garage. The front door will be placed on Hillcrest Road rather than on the side of the house as it currently is. The new FAR is 15.14%which is below the allowed FAR of 17% and the ILC will be 23.3% which is below the allowed 25%.
William Barrett, the applicant stated the Connell family owns the home and were supporting their application. They invited the neighbors to see their plans before coming to the board. Arthur Max asked when you first looked at the house did anyone talk to you about knocking down the house. Mr. Barrett explained they originally planned to renovate the house and had plans draw but had to change to this approach when the termite and structural damage were discovered.
Larry Korinda, a licensed Architect located in Boonton, NJ, presented the new house plans to the Board. The plan will have new front door facing Hillcrest and a Garage. The house will be located on the current Front Yard Setback line. The new FAR and ILC would be under the allowable percentage. Six non-conforming conditions will be eliminated. Two non-conforming conditions will remain and two will be reduced. Mr. Korinda presented Exhibit A-1 which was a photo board of the existing house which sits higher than the house next door. Exhibit A-2 was a colored version of the basement and 1st floor plan of the new home. Exhibit A-3 was the 2nd floor and attic plan of the new home. Exhibit A-4 showed the colorized elevations of the new house with an outline of the existing house ridge line in red to show the height comparison between the two dwellings.
Mr. Korinda explained the applicant had looked into renovating the property before the termite damage was found. If they had renovated it would have required additional C and D variances, the left side setback would have been more server, there would have been more soil work required, there would have been no backyard, and 7 of the non-conforming situation would still exist. Arthur Max asked what the outside dimensions of the current house were verses the new house footprint. The new house footprint is 52 ft deep x 42 ft wide and the existing home 41 ft deep x 50 ft wide. Mary Dietz asked the age of the existing house and if they explored putting a front door on the existing house. Mr. Korinda thought the house was built in 1918 and they did look into moving the front door but it did not work.
Exhibit A-5 the existing floor plan was presented. Tim Willke asked how much termite damage there was. It was on all 4 sides of foundation wall and in the main girder. It could possibly go up in the walls of the house. Mr. Korinda stated this is the most damage he has seen in town.
Chris Richter asked if there were any questions from the public, there were none.
Fred Malone, a licensed Engineer from IRC Associates in Riverdale, NJ, reported on the extent of the house damage. The rubble stone foundation had signs of water leaks. The sill plate is in disrepair due to termites and water. The main girder has severe terminate damage and most likely the joists are damaged as well. The joists are undersize for the floor span which explains why the house currently has posts added to brace up the floor. The house would have to be jacked up to replace the sill plate. Mr. Malone would be concerned if the house was jacked up; he felt the structure would not hold up under those conditions. The damage to the house was overwhelming. Mary Dietz asked if there was evidence of settling, yes there are settling cracking within the house. The floors are sagging and at sometime someone put in a secondary girder to support the floor. The termite inspection report became Exhibit A-6. Chris Gallo asked if the house was safe to live in. Mr. Malone thought they would have to do an addition inspection and was not suggesting the house should be condemned. Chris Richter asked if there were any questions of this witness from the public, there were none.
Marc Walker a licensed Engineer from Dykstra Walker Design Group presented Exhibit A-7 that showed the footprint of the existing dwelling and driveway. Outlined in red on the exhibit was the limit of the proposed dwelling and driveway. Exhibit A-8 was a colorized plot plan Mr. Walker used to explain the Front Yard Setback. The double frontage and the neighboring flag lot on the Hillcrest Road side of the property create a hardship. They propose placing the front of the house in the same location it currently is, 63.6 ft. If you drew a line between the 2 neighboring houses on the Hillcrest side and excluded the flag lot, the setback would be 66.5 feet. Placing the house at the existing location the new home will impact the neighbors the least and is in the spirit of the ordinance. Currently the property has little or no usable yard and all sides of the building exceed the allowable height. The applicant has tried to save the existing house but could not. Therefore the goal was to design a house that would be more conforming. The new design lowers the 1st floor two ft because they added a concrete slab for the front porch. The new driveway conforms to the ordinance; it has a turn around that provides safety for pulling out onto Hillcrest and has a 4 ft buffer for the neighbor next door. The homeowner will now have a yard and the existing walking path to Ball Road will be kept.
The applicant is also requesting a Soil Moving Permit to move 783 cubic yard on the site. Most of the soil will be moved around the property they only need to bring in 3 to 4 truck loads of dirt. The average change in grade is less than 3 feet on each side. The applicant has no issues with the comments from the Borough Engineer, Bill Ryden. They have created two flat areas with the soil moving permit. The soil that is cut for the foundation and front yard goes to the back yard. The back yard matches up with the house on the easterly and on the westerly side they have added a 2 ft retaining wall. They will also put in a series of retaining walls down to Ball Rd. A Building Envelope of 50 x 85 ft is needed and there are no usable areas on the property for the envelope to be placed. The Height is a problem only on the Ball Road side. The slope in the back of the house creates the problem on the Ball Road frontage. The new height on this side is 38.4 ft where 35 ft is allowed and the stories will be going from 4 stories to 3 where 2 ˝ is allowed. The new height is 29.8 ft and 2 stories on Hillcrest side. The east side of the house was 3 stories and now is 2 while on the west side the 4 stories become 2. The Vice Chair asked if the Board had any questions for Mr. Walker, there were none.
Michael Sullivan reminded those present the applicant has the right to demolish the house and would not have to come to the board to build a new home if they meet all the Borough ordinances. They also have the right to come to the board if they had a need for a variance.
Mr. Richter asked if the public had any questions and/or comments.
Andy Bulfer, of 17 Bradford Terrace in Boonton Township, was there representing the Historic Preservation Committee. The committee opposed the application as submitted but would support any additions to the existing home. Mr. Bulfer read a statement supporting the maintaining of Hapgood homes. John Connell, of 40 Dartmouth Road, explained the house was his family home and his family supports the new plans for the property. He is also a neighbor and thought the house would fit comfortably in the neighborhood. Michael Schuckman, of 39 Ball Road, stated his family liked the plan and would like to see the project move forward they only ask the applicant include some landscaping to block their view. The applicant agreed to do so. Arthur Max asked Mr. Schuckman how he felt about the retaining walls; he felt they would not affect them. Glen Tippy, of 62 Pollard Rd., likes how many of the recent houses renovations have turned into “Hapgood like” homes and was in favor of the application.
The Board then made their comments. Chris Gallo stated if the Front Yard Setback would be 66.5 ft if you connected the two houses on Hillcrest could you then eliminate the need for a variance for the building envelope, no it would not. Tim Willke stated he was ok with variances requested. Pat Rusak would not support the application because of the height on the Ball Road side. Chris Gallo would like to see the house moved back 3 feet. Mary Dietz felt the house on the Ball Road side was too high and requested they bring that into compliance. She also thought the front yard setback should be at 66.5 ft. Chris Richter asked the applicant if they brought the house into conformity for height what would result. Larry Korinda stated you would wind up with a Cape Cod. Arthur Max thought the application was balanced and a reasonable attempt at satisfying all the requirements they could. Chris Richter stated as a planner he would support the application. Arthur Max made the motion to approve the application with the applicant complying with Bill Ryden’s letter requirements and a landscape screen along lot 11.01. Chris Gallo provided the second with Board members passing the application 4 to 2. Members Max, Gallo, Willke and Richter voted in favor and Rusak and Dietz voted against.
Other Matters / Public Comment:
Chris Richter asked if there were any comments from the public, there were none.
Chris Richter made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mary Dietz provided the second.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Shaw, Secretary