MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES
June 2, 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, Max, Willke, Dietz, Richter, Cohen and Gallo
Absent: Rusak and Abate
Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan
REVIEW OF MINUTES: Mary Dietz made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 5th meeting. Arthur Max provided the second; the minutes were approved by voice vote by all members.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
MARK THOMSON & HELEN APPLEBY App. #11-591
Chris Richter made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval; Tim Willke seconded the motion. The resolution was passed by a vote of to 5 to 0 with members Bolo, Richter, Dietz, Max, and Willke voting in favor.
ANTHONY & ELIZABETH FESTA Appl. #11-592
Tim Willke made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval; Mary Dietz seconded the motion. The resolution was passed by a vote of to 5 to 0 with members Bolo, Richter, Dietz, Max, and Willke voting in favor.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: All applicants and professionals were sworn in by Chair Peter Bolo.
Carried from May 5, 2011
ANTHONY & ELIZABETH FESTA 78 Laurel Hill Road
Bl. 56, Lot 56.01 Appl. #11-592
Fence R-AA Zone
Anthony and Elizabeth Festa of 78 Laurel Hill Road presented changes to the fence portion of their original application. The fence that currently runs along the back of their property is not allowed because it is within the rear setback. Anthony Festa told the Board they had removed the existing fence. The Zoning Officer told Elizabeth Festa the row of boulders they proposed to replace the fence would increase their ILC. Michael Sullivan clarified the boulders would act as a barrier and would only be 18” to 24” in height. Anthony Festa said they lived on a small corner lot, their yard was heavily used and the lot dropped off in the back creating a safety issue.
Peter Bolo said the lot has a step grade, replace a non-conforming fence with a row off stone that would create a barrier for safety was a good alternative. Elizabeth Festa said they would like to add trees to this row of rocks, they felt it would improve their lot value. Tim Willke confirmed the applicant was looking for a rock line. Chris Richter established the rock line would follow the current fence line on the survey dated May 19, 2011.
Peter Bolo asked if there were any comments from the public, no one was present to comment on the application.
Peter Bolo thought it was a terrific plan and that 18” boulders were not a wall. Mr. Richter was glad to see the homeowner was replacing the fence. Chris Richter made a motion to approve the application increasing the ILC to 24.8% and to allow the boulder row to be located in the setback. The boulders would follow the current fence line and no mortar would be used to create a wall. Tim Willke provided the second. The application was passed by a vote of to7 to 0 with members Bolo, Richter, Dietz, Max, Cohen Gallo and Willke voting in favor.
New Applications:
MARY BREITWEISER 30 Glen Road
Bl. 78, Lot 52 Appl. #11-593
Front Yard R-A Zone
Peter Bolo recused himself from hearing the application because he lives within 200 ft of the applicant. Vice Chair Chris Richter conducted the hearing for the application.
Mary Breitweiser, of 30 Glen Road and Seth Leeb, a licensed Architect in the state of New Jersey presented the application. Ms. Breitweiser explained she do not have a covered front entrance and was looking to add one to improve her house. Seth Leeb explained the applicant currently had an existing non-conforming house due to the required average front yard setback of 70.17 ft. The required average front yard setback would actually go through the house. The house is setback 45.17 ft from Glen Road. The applicant wishes to shift the current front door to the right and cover it. The current side yard setbacks are non-conforming and the only variance needed is for the Average Front Yard Setback. Exhibit A-1 was a photo board consisting of a series of 7 photos of the house that took you from the left side of the property to the right side of the property. The closest neighbor is 40 ft away from the house with vegetation blocking their view. They would be changing the exterior to stucco and stone, sprucing up the entire front porch. The porch sits back further than any of the neighbor’s front porches and will sit no closer that it does now.
Mr. Richter asked if there were any questions from the Board, they had none.
He then asked if the public had any questions. Peter Bolo, of 12 Glen Road, confirmed the proposed front setback remained unchanged then added the plan was a terrific plan really updating the house. Mark Cohen thought the plan was nice and Mary Dietz thought it was a good idea.
Arthur Max made a motion to accept the application as presented and Chris Gallo provided the second. The application was passed by a vote of to 6 to 0 with members Richter, Dietz, Max, Cohen Gallo and Willke voting in favor.
THOMAS & CHRISTINA PIROLO 38 Ball Road
Bl. 97, Lot 11.02 App. #11-594
Side Yard R-A Zone
Christina Pirolo, of 38 Ball Road and Kimberly Hurley, of 20 Maple Way and a licensed Architect presented the application. Christina Pirolo told the Board she would like to build a masonry fireplace in her yard, adding it on to an existing patio that is already within the setback. At one time the property was subdivided into 3 lots and her lot kept the original patio. The lower patio area is lovely and they would like to enhance it. Exhibit A-1 was a fireplace plan and elevation. Exhibit A-2 was a photo board consisting of 4 photos and a copy of survey. The fireplace would be located on the Ball Road side of the patio at basement level in what they thought was the most logical spot. There is a large grade drop from property to property on Ball Road so it would not be easily viewed by the neighbors. The edge of fireplace is 16 ft from the property line. The requested height of the fireplace is 14 ft. for maximum draft. The applicant was asking for a little larger fireplace chimney to ensure it could be built properly. The side yard setback requested for the fireplace is 16” to the property line but only 14 ft to the side pier.
Mary Dietz told the applicant she was concerned about the height of the fireplace. She asked if they had considered moving the fireplace to the side. Christina Pirolo said she did not want to make the fireplace that high. She was planning on landscaping the back of it blocking the view from the street. Kim Hurley thought putting the fireplace along the side would break up the patio area. The space they had chosen was more intimate. Mary Dietz confirmed the flue would be at the level of the 1st floor and question the need to put the fireplace in the side yard setback. Chris Richter asked if they could put it on the side of the terrace and move the steps. Ms. Hurley said the steps were original and they were placing the fireplace on the side of the patio that had already been disturbed. Peter Bolo confirmed the applicant thought this was the best spot from a functional standpoint and they were enhancing something that was already historic. He then asked if they could reduce the height of the fireplace. Chris Gallo was concerned about the smoke and the neighbors. Kim Hurley pointed out that the fireplace was not on the side of the house the neighbor lived on. That neighbor’s house was 40 ft away and had no windows on that side.
Peter Bolo asked if there were any questions from the public, there were none. He then asked for comments. George Jackson, 131 Laurel Hill Road, commented that the Master Plan encourages the preservation of historic structures and the Zoning Board should do so as well.
Dr. Bolo then asked for comments from the Board. Tim Willke asked if the front steps were original. Kim Hurley said they were not but they provided access. Chris Richter suggested the applicant move the fireplace to the other end of the patio. The architect said that would place the fireplace on the Morris Ave side and they would have no way of masking it making it appear even taller. Exhibit A-3 was a photo of the existing patio with a hand drawing of the fireplace on tissue that could overlay the photo. Peter Bolo asked the applicant if they would be willing to reduce height to 12 ft and provide plantings to block view from the neighbor and Ball Road. Arthur Max asked if they could design a smaller fireplace with less mass and not 14 ft high. Mark Cohen thought the fireplace was too close to the property line as well as being too large. Tim Willke said he was concerned about the setback. Chris Gallo said he understood why the applicant wanted to install the fireplace but the Board had responsibilities to the neighbors. His concern was the smoke.
Peter Bolo asked the applicant if they would like to carry the application and come back with a different design. Christina Pirolo asked if she reduced the size right now could she get an approval. Mary Dietz explained the Board would need to see the drawings.
The applicant asked to carry to the application to the next meeting, July 7th. The Board took a voice vote to approve carrying the application.
DOUGLAS & CAROL KENNEDY 135 Pollard Road
Bk. 112, Lot 28-31 App. #11-595
Side Yard R-A Zone
Arthur Max recused himself from hearing the application because he lived within 200 ft of the property. Douglas and Carol Kennedy of 135 Pollard Road were sworn in. Doug Kennedy explained they were here to request a variance for a side yard setback. They currently have a pre-existing non-conforming condition that was original to the house. They were planning to add an elevator as they have elderly parents and saw themselves as caretakers for them, ultimately they would be able to use it themselves. They would not be increasing the footprint of the house or changing the ILC. The neighbors are 95 ft from their home.
Jeffery McEntee, in licensed Architect in the state of NJ explained the applicant was looking for a side yard setback of 19.63 ft were 19.63 already exists and the pergola would remain. Chris Richter asked why the elevator was being installed in that location. Jeff McEntee explained they could have placed it elsewhere but this was the least invasive area it also allowed them to get from the driveway into the house. Doug Kennedy said they considered two other locations but they did not work. Mary Dietz pointed out that the roof look quite large and did the Architect consider any other options for roof planes. Jeff McEntee said they were matching the gabled roofs that already existed on the house and providing for the required elevator clearance.
Peter Bolo asked if there were any questions from the public. Arthur Max, 390 Morris Avenue, asked how the new roofline tied in. There was no rear elevation on the plan and that maked it hard to visualize. Did the existing roof line change and what was the height of the new section. The roof line does not change and the new section’s roof will be 26.1 ft high.
Mary Dietz asked if the applicant could lower the roof line and line it up with the fascia of the existing building. Jeff McEntee said he was not sure if the roof could be lowered because of the required elevator clearance. He would have to play with it keeping in mind that the rake boards are not the same on both sides. Doug Kennedy was willing to have the Architect make the suggested changes if they could be done. Jeff McEntee agreed to make his best effort to revise the second floor addition partition height and/or adjust the length of the roof overhang so that they match the existing rake board and fascia on the east side of the house.
Chris Gallo made a motion to accept the application with the condition that the applicants make their best effort modify the roof line to match the existing rake board and fascia. A second was provided by Mark Cohen. The application was passed by a vote of to 6 to 0 with members Bolo, Richter, Dietz, Cohen Gallo and Willke voting in favor.
Carried from April 7, 2011
RICHARD J. TKACH 80 Fanny Road
Bl. 66, Lot 15 Appl. #11-587
Side, Rear, Front, Lot Depth R-A Zone
Building Envelope, Fence
Richard Tkach of Parsippany, NJ and Aherin Cox a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey were sworn in. Mr. Tkach stated he listened to the comments made by the Board in April and made changes to the house he wished to build. Exhibit A-12 was a new set of house plans prepared by Aherin Cox. Exhibit A -13 was a new ILC calculation and Exhibit A-14 was a new FAR calculation dated May 25, 2011 also prepared by the Architect. Page P-3 of the new house plans was a site plan showing the new house footprint located within the setbacks. The new plan removes the side and rear setback variances previously requested but Mr. Tkach still needed a variance for lot depth, minimum building envelope, and the 3 setbacks for the fence. Michael Sullivan reminded the applicant the overlap area, 1725 sq ft, had not been deeded to him and he needed to remove that amount from the calculations for FAR and ILC. Mr. Cox then explained to the Board how he pulled the house in to meet the setbacks.
Mary Dietz confirmed with the applicant that the x’d line on the site plan was where the DEP wanted the fence to be placed. Since our last meeting Richard Tkach had contacted the DEP about allowing the fence to be replaced with a hedge row. They told him if the Board did not approve the fence he could go back to the DEP and amend his application requesting they accept a hedge row in place of the fence. Mr. Tkach explained the house needed a set of stairs coming out the back of the house. By code a second exit is required on the first floor. Chris Richter asked if the second exit out of the Garage counted. The Architect did not think that counted and thought the applicant needed an exit on the other side of the house. The attic has a roof top deck for outdoor space.
The applicant said he would like to add deck off back of the house. The dimensions of the deck would be 17’ x 6’. Michael Sullivan said that the applicant would now need a rear yard set back of 22 ft. for the deck with the house remaining at 25 ft.
Chris Richter asked about the height of house. Aherin Cox said he did the plan under the worse case scenario. He reduced the ceilings on the second floor to 8 ft. and used the floor height set by the DEP. There is no revised grade plan for this house. The applicant was trying to match the building height requirements set in the DEP transition plan. In conclusion, Richard Tkach reminded the Board of hardship this lot presented when meeting the requirements for lot depth, building envelope and front yard setback.
Michael Sullivan told the Board they could approve these three variances and put a condition in the resolution about the fence. They could also put a condition in the resolution about the height. The applicant would have to do a site plan showing the grades and the height would have to be approved by the Zoning Officer.
Peter Bolo asked if there were questions from the public. George Jackson, 131 Laurel Hill Road, said he was concerned about height. He remembered there was a similar problem with another house in town. He asked if the attic was included in the FAR, yes it was. Josh Gellert, of 15 Melrose Road, thought there were a lot of variances required to build this house. He did not understand why the Borough would not be purchasing the property. He was also concerned about the ascetics of the home and the height. He asked if the applicant could make it look more like a Hapgood. Peter Bolo explained that there was no requirement in town to make your home look like a Hapgood. Richard Tkach said he would be willing to build a home with natural material. The Board suggested the use for stucco and a “river rock” style cultured stone for the exterior of the home.
Dr. Bolo closed the public portion of the meeting and the Board discussed the approval of the fence. Mr. Tkach had requested putting a condition in the resolution that allowed him to come back to the Board without prejudice on the fence if it was denied. If the hedge row was approved by the DEP he would not have to come back to the board. Chris Richter pointed out to the Board that if they denied the fence with prejudice and the DEP did not approve the hedge row the DEP would ultimately be responsible for condemning the property.
Mary Dietz wanted to approve the variance since the applicant had reduced the size of the house but would deny the fence. Chris Richter said if the applicant had complied with the DEP setbacks of 25 ft for the wetlands rather than the14 ft. he was at he would not have to have the fence. He would deny fence with prejudice.
Michael Sullivan reviewed the potential conditions of the resolution. He asked Mr. Tkach if he agreed to comply with items 1-4 on the letter from Mr. Miller, the Town of Boonton’s Engineer. Mr Tkach agreed. He also asked if he agreed to comply with the conditions of the Mountain Lakes Engineer Bill Ryden’s, letter specifically items 4, 7, 9. He agreed to comply. A corrected ILC and FAR calculation that reflected the lot size change would have to be provided. Zoning Official, Jeff Montemarano, would need to approve the height of the house. The escrow accounts would need to be current and the materials used for outside of the house would have to as specified. Tree management plan would have to be done and the deck would need a rear setback variance. Lastly the fence would require a front, side and rear yard setback variance.
A motion was made by Mary Dietz to approve the variances for the average front yard setback, lot depth and building envelope and Arthur Max provided the second. The variance was approved 4 to 3 with Board members Bolo, Richter, Dietz and Gallo voting in favor. Cohen, Max and Willke voted against approving the variances.
Chris Richter made a motion to deny the rear setback variance to add a deck to the home, a second was provided by Tim Willke. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-2 with Board members Richter, Cohen, Dietz, Max, and Willke voting to deny the variance. Bolo and Gallo voted against the motion.
Chris Richter made a motion to deny the front, side and rear setback variance required for the fence, a second was provided by Arthur Max. The motion was approved by a vote of 7-0 with Board members Bolo, Richter, Cohen, Dietz, Max, Gallo and Willke voting to deny the variance.
Other Matters / Public Comment:
Peter Bolo asked if there were any comments from the public, none present.
Arthur Max asked the Board members what documentation was required for an application. Chris Richter explained that he had reviewed the current application and check list with the Board Administrator and found several items missing from our check list. She hoped to have a copy of the proposed changes ready for the next meeting.
Arthur Max made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mary Dietz provided the second. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Shaw, Secretary