MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES
February 3, 2011
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 6, 2011. Said resolution was mailed to The Citizen and The Morris County Daily Record and by filing the same with the Borough Clerk on January 10, 2011 and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Bolo, Dietz, Max, Abate, Rusak, Richter, Gallo, Cohen and Willke (8pm)
Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan
REVIEW OF MINUTES: Chris Gallo made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 6th meeting with corrections suggested by Mr. Richter. Pat Rusak provided the second; the minutes were approved by voice vote by all members.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
AUDREY LANE Appl. #11-583
Chris Richter made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval; Arthur Max seconded the motion. The resolution was passed by a vote of 6 to 0 with members Bolo, Richter, Dietz, Max Rusak and Abate voting in favor.
KATHY & PETER DYDENSBORG Appl. 11-585
Pia Abate made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval; Mary Dietz seconded the motion. The resolution was passed by a vote of 7 to 0 with members Bolo, Richter, Dietz, Max, Rusak, Abate and Gallo voting in favor.
CYNTHIA GALLAGHER & SHAUN MANCHAND Appl. 11-586
Chris Richter made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval; Chris Gallo seconded the motion. The resolution was passed by a vote of 6 to 0 with members Bolo, Richter, Dietz, Rusak, Abate and Gallo voting in favor.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: All applicants and professionals were sworn in by Chair Peter Bolo.
Carried from January 6, 2011
MAUREEN COLLETON 5 Crane Road
Bk. 100 Lot 70 Appl. #11-584
Side Yard RA zone
The Board Secretary received a request from the applicant to have her application withdrawn. Mary Dietz made a motion to withdraw the application without prejudice and a second was provided by Arthur Max. The motion was approved by voice vote of all members.
New Applications:
JAMES & LOIS MORLOCK 2 Pinewood Lane
Bl. 18, Lot 2 App. #11-588
FAR, ILC R-1 Zone
James and Lois Morlock, of 2 Pinewood Lane, were sworn in. Marjorie Roller of 9 Brookview Road in Boonton Twp NJ and a licensed Architect in the state of New Jersey was also sworn in.
Marjorie Roller told the Board the applicant wished to expand their 1950’s home. They were looking to construct a 2 ½ story addition in the location of an existing porch and expand the driveway to give them an additional parking space. The current family room and kitchen would be enlarged and the laundry would be moved out of the basement. Upstairs they would be changing the master bedroom and bath. The Morlock’s have lived in this home for 30 years; it was a ranch that they added a second story to in the 80’s. Exhibit A-1 consisted of 2 photos: one of the front and one of the rear of the existing home. They would like to enclose the screened-in porch on the first floor pushing it out 30” and expanding the second floor. Ms. Roller explained there were no set back issues. The ILC currently was 24.6% and would be 27.1% after the work was completed where 25% is allowed. The FAR is currently 21.4 % and would become 24.5% where 20% is allowed.
Mark Cohen asked what would happen to the screen porch. Marjorie Roller explained the porch was being removed and the expansion of the family room will occupy that space and there would be no screened-in porch when the project was complete. Chris Richter asked if the applicant considered raising the roof. Ms. Roller said that would only solve the second floor problems but would not help the 1st floor project. Mary Dietz said she understood increasing the parking area, that made sense, but the applicant was also increasing the ILC by enlarging the family room. Marjorie Roller said the house addition was 50 sq ft. If the applicant do not expand the driveway they would only increase the total ILC by 22 sq ft. She went on to say the stairway created a problem. By pushing the rear wall back 2 ft they could fit in the stairs and also have a wall of cabinets in the kitchen.
Peter Bolo asked if there were any comments or questions from the public. Steve Castellucci, of 2 Laurelwood Drive, moved into the neighborhood in 1982. The Morlock property has always been well kept. The extra couple of cabinets and feet would make a big difference in a small house. As a firefighter for the Borough he felt the expansion would create a better situation for fire rescue. Chris Gallo asked the location of Mr. Castellucci’s house. He explained their side yard was the Morlock’s backyard.
Dr. Bolo asked for comments from the Board. Mary Dietz thought removing the car from the road was better for the community. She was not in favor of the house expansion. Chris Gallo asked why they were relocating the steps. Marjorie Roller said it allowed them to update the 2nd floor bathroom and fix the master closet. Mr. Richter confirmed after the renovation the second floor became a master suite.
Jim Morlock said the washer and dryer were in basement which was fine when they moved in. Lois has a bad back now so they needed to move the laundry upstairs into the kitchen. They also desired more space for their grandchildren. Peter Bolo said it was a modest size house and they were only adding 310 sq ft. Chris Richter thought they should only expand into the screened-in porch area and he did not like the increase in the driveway due to the wider curb cut. Pat Rusak was ok with the driveway expansion but not the kitchen. Mark Cohen stated on a 10,000 sq ft lot you can only do so much. Arthur Max understood the lot sq ft was small but would like to keep the ILC in line with the rest of the neighborhood. Pia Abate would like to see them keep the back of the house expansion to the edge of the current screened-in porch. Jim Morlock thought the ILC percentage for small property owners was a hardship. Chris Richter explained that the R-1 zone in town had a larger percentage for ILC than other zones in town.
Peter Bolo asked if the applicant would like to carry their application to the next meeting. Marjorie Roller said no they would change the house renovation and amend their application now. The new back wall of the kitchen would be to the current edge of the screened-in porch. By doing so they would remove the 2.5 X 20 ft addition at the rear of the home. If they also reduced the width of the driveway by 1 ft the ILC would be reduced to 26.4% and the FAR would be reduced to 24%.
A motion was made by Chris Richter to reduce the FAR by 68 sq ft. and reduce the ILC to 26.4%; Mark Cohen provided the second. The application was approved by a vote of 6 to 1 with members Bolo, Richter, Cohen, Max, Rusak, and Abate voting in favor. Mary Dietz voted no.
RICHARD J. TKACH 80 Fanny Road
Bl. 66, Lot 15 Appl. #11-587
Side, Rear, Front, Lot Depth R-A Zone
Building Envelope, Fence
Before the applicant presented his application Michael Sullivan reminded the Board of the outcome of Mr. Tkach’s 2006 application. At that time the Board denied the variances requested because the following items were not part of the original application: there were no building plans, there were questions about the lot topography, grading and drainage plus the wetlands had not been located which would ultimately determine the placement of the house and the driveway on the property. This was a C-1, “hardship”, application.
Richard Tkach, of 414 N. Beverwyck Road Parsippany and Gordon Meth of Lake Hiawatha and a licensed Traffic Engineer in the state of New Jersey were sworn in. Mr Tkach presented Exhibit A – 1 which was a revision of sections C, the Proposal and section D, the Reasons for Relief of the original application. He read from his application about the house he planned on building. Exhibit A-2, a copy of the Transition Averaging Plan, prepared on May 15, 2009 by Fredrick C. Meola, for the DEP, was presented to the Board. Exhibit A-3, already submitted with the application, was a letter, dated June 18, 2009 from DEP of the State of New Jersey accepting the Transition Averaging Plan. Mr. Tkach then presented a display Board which was labeled Exhibit A – 4. The Board consisted of an aerial photo of the site, 2 photos showing the site distance from the proposed driveway, the site layout of Hapgood Court across the street from the applicant’s property and a property plot plan that was already submitted. Exhibit A-5 was the floor plans plus the front and rear elevations of the house that were already submitted. The applicant then went on to explain the features of the house he plans to build.
Using the Plot Plan from Exhibit A-4 Richard Tkach explained the DEP wetland transition area requirements and the fence that was needed. Chris Richter explained to the Board how the DEP Averaging Plan worked. According to the DEP letter, (exhibit A-3), the transition area would be reduced by 1510 sq ft and would be compensated by 1511 sq ft of equal ecological valued uplands. This would protect the sheet flow running off from the road. Chris Gallo asked if the applicant submitted the house plans and the DEP determined the placement of the fence or were the wetlands determined first. The house was designed after the DEP determination of the wetlands. The applicant needed a side and rear yard setback due to the fence. Pia Abate asked what type of fence would be installed; it would be a split rail fence. Richard Tkach said he also needed a Front Yard exception because the YMCA and Little League ball field shed were setback so far it created a front setback of 79.6 ft for this lot rather than the normal 40 ft front setback requirement in this zone.
Gordon Meth was present at the hearing to answer the question raised by Mr. Ryden pertaining to the sight distance requirements on Fanny Road. Because there is no town ordinance covering the site triangle Mr. Meth used the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials publication A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets to determine the recommended intersection sight distance and stopping sight distance. Although the sight distance is greater you only need to meet the stopping distance for approval. Mr. Meth independently verified the sight distance at the end of the proposed driveway. Exhibit A-4 shows the guard rail guard on Fanny Road and a red car was parked in the proposed driveway. From the driveway looking at the road to the east there is 255 ft of sight, the recommended sight distance is 280 ft and the stopping distance is 155 ft. Design speed of the curve to the east is 25 miles per hour with a posted sign for 20 mile per hour at the curve. There is a series of reverse curves coming from the west with a design speed of 35 miles per hour. According to the AASHTO 390 ft is the recommended sight distance and the stopping distance is 250 ft. There is 320 ft of sight distance available so the proposed driveway is in the best location on the property. As Mr. Meth stated in his letter to Mr. Ryden, Exhibit A-6, the sight distances had been satisfied as long as the property was being properly maintained. Michael Sullivan asked if the sight easements in Land Use Residential Sight Improvement Standards applied, Gordon Meth said they did not apply to the driveways of single family homes.
Chris Richter asked where the sight distance was figured from. Mr. Meth said it was calculated 10 ft back from the stopping point. Mr. Richter continued if that was so, the driver’s eye perspective from 10 ft back would be where the wetlands area drops off so the driver would have a hard time seeing over the wetlands. Mr. Richter asked if the applicant had the right to trim the restricted area. Richard Tkach said he cannot trim the deed restricted area. Gordon Meth said at 10 ft back only the corner of the restricted area would be a problem and the applicant could trim the balance of the area.
Mr. Meth said the width of Fanny Road was 26 to 27 ft wide and 26 ft was sufficient for a 2 lane road therefore there would be no need to widen the road. Chris Richter asked what width would be required to install a sidewalk to the Boulevard. Mr. Meth said you would need 6 ft and there currently is 3 ft available. He added he would narrow the road to put in a sidewalk which he thought would be a good idea. Peter Bolo asked how the egress was for the driveway as compared to Melrose Road. Gordon Meth had looked at the sight when there was a lot of snow and thought the sight distance would be worse from Melrose Rd.
Michael Sullivan asked Mr. Tkach if he could tell the Board about the history of the lot. Richard Tkach explained, per the original deed, his property was once part of the property that is now Hapgood Court. Fanny Road was put in about 100 years ago and bisected the property. Mr. Sullivan asked when Fanny was constructed, was the road put in by condemnation and the property owner compensated for his property? Richard Tkach said he could not find anything on that but would assume so. Mr. Sullivan reminded the Board that the applicant said this is a substandard lot. He then told the Board about a case in the Borough from 1992, Ketcherick v. Borough of Mountain Lakes, where a lot was created by an illegal subdivision. The application was denied. Later the court ruled the hardship was self created and therefore the new property owner was not entitled to a variance to make the lot buildable. He then said this was an isolated substandard lot and asked Mr. Tkach if he had tried to purchase land from his neighbors to make the lot a conforming lot or try to sell the lot to either of them. Richard Tkach said after his last application in 2006 he tried to sell the lot or do a land trade with the Borough of Mountain Lakes. At that time the Borough Manager said the Borough did not buy or sell property. Mr. Tkach did not have any to prove that he had spoken to his neighbors, the YMCA and the Borough, about the selling of his property. Exhibit A -8, the original survey from Fredrick Meloa dated 1-11-06, from the 2006 application was entered as evidence. Pat Rusak, a Board member who is also a member of the Borough Historical Society, presented maps showing Fanny Road in 1910 (Exhibit B-1) when Mountain Lakes was located in Boonton Twp. She also submitted Exhibit B-2, a map from1924 from the Borough achieves. Fanny Road and the lot appear to be the same today as they were on the two maps that were presented.
Dr. Bolo asked if there were any questions for Mr. Meth. Ann Herrmann, of 18 Hapgood Court in Boonton said the increased traffic from Park Place and the current traffic from the YMCA created a lot of traffic on Fanny Road. She was concerned about the additional traffic that would be created by the new house. Mr. Meth said that statistically there would be 5 cars per day out of the driveway. Beth Gellert, of 15 Melrose Road, was concerned about the drainage on the property and what trees Mr. Tkach would be taking down. Richard Tkach explained he would be taking down only the trees in the building envelope. Ann Herrmann asked about the basement. Because of the slope of the lot the basement would be out of the ground more in the back of the house than the front.
Mr. Tkach went on to read his application pointing out that the survey showed his lot to be in Mountain Lakes and he paid his taxes to Mountain Lakes. The shape of the property creates a hardship and it cannot be developed without variances. Besides the front and rear setback variances he would need a variance for Lot Depth and the Building Envelope. He went on to explain that he now had house plans and the other engineering plans that were missing the last time he was before the board. The house conforms to height, FAR and ILC requirements of the Borough. Peter Bolo asked what the sq footage of the house was, it is 3752.
Michael Sullivan said he had an unofficial copy of the deed to the property, Exhibit A-9, and found the area of overlap on the plot plan was not conveyed in that deed to Richard Tkach. In total 1725 sq ft was not conveyed. That would affect the total site area used for all the calculations. Mr. Tkach redid the calculation for FAR and ILC at the meeting. The new FAR would be 14.04% and the new ILC would be 11.5%. Mary Dietz asked the applicant; if when he purchased the property did he realize the lot was substandard? Yes, he was aware it would need a lot of variance. Arthur Max asked what efforts Mr. Tkach had made to obtain the Borough land between himself and Melrose Road. Mr Tkach said he sent a letter to the town back in 2006 and it was not accepted by the Borough Manager. Michael Sullivan provided the applicant with a sample of a letter, Exhibit B-3; he could use to send to the Borough and the YMCA to determine their interest in his property. The sample letter included a request for a response that could be returned to him by his neighbors.
Chris Richter asked if the applicant had secured sewer and water for the lot, he had not. Mr. Richter suggested that Mr. Tkach work on getting that information. He also asked for answers to Mr. Ryden’s, the Mountain Lakes Engineer, and Mr. Miller’s, the Boonton Engineer, questions about his application. The right to grant a 50 ft right of way to Boonton predated the buying of this land. How would that affect his project? The Plot Plan prepared by Dykstra Walker shows the need for a minor soil moving permit which would need to be obtained.
Dr. Bolo asked if there were any questions from the public. Ann Herrmann of Hapgood Court said the house appears large; the houses in Hapgood Court are only 3100 sq ft. She was also concerned that the new house sat to close to the road. She asked about the top soil pile. Richard Tkach explained the soil would be spread over the lot and the pile would be removed by the time the house was finished. The silt fence was only temporary and was used for soil erosion control. She asked if the conservation easement was buildable, no it was not. Beth Gellert, of 15 Melrose Road, asked if the home was elevated since it is on wetlands. Richard Tkach said house would be built on virgin soil. Mary Deitz explained the building would be built 4 ft out of the ground in the front and 6 ft in the back. Jim Mc Crudden of 11 Yorke Road, was there representing the YMCA, he was sworn in. He explained that the YMCA had had conversations with the previous owners but had not talked to Mr. Tkach about buying the property. At that time the price was $250,000 therefore the Y was not interested in purchasing the lot. Mr. Mc Crudden presented exhibits O-1 to O-5, photos of the run off from Mr. Tkach’s property. Sometimes the water runs from 80 Fanny Road all the way to the corner of the Y building. Exhibit O-6 was a photo of the guard rail which contained many dents. Mr. Mc Crudden thought that there were safety issues on Fanny Road. He was also concerned about the open space and the number of variances required especially variances granted on un-buildable lots. Richard Tkach said the completed Hapgood Court detention basin would help the run off situation.
A motion was made by Mark Cohen to carry the application to the meeting on April 7th to allow Mr. Tkach time to get the additional information the Board was looking for. A second was provided by Pat Rusak. A voice vote approved carrying the application to April.
Other Matters / Public Comment:
Mark Cohen made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Pia Abate provided the second. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Shaw, Secretary