MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES
August 2 , 2012
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 5, 2012. Said resolution was mailed to The Citizen and The Morris County Daily Record and by filing the same with the Borough Clerk on January 9, 2012 and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Max, Richter, Cohen, Bolo, Abate, Rusak and Dietz
Absent: Gallo, Albergo
Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan
REVIEW OF MINUTES: Pia Abate made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 7th meeting. Arthur Max provided the second; the minutes were approved by voice vote by all members.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS: none
PUBLIC HEARINGS: The Applicant was sworn in by Attorney Michael Sullivan.
New Applications:
JOFF & CATHY MITCHELL 25 Lake End Place
Blk. 100, Lot 73 Appl. #12-614
Shoreline R-A zone
Richard Nelson, a licensed Architect in the state of NJ, and Joff Mitchell of 2 Ball Rd, presented the application. The Mitchell’s were under contract to purchase 25 Lake End Place. They wanted to do modest renovations to the home after the closing. They wished to make the 1st floor sunroom more usable and add a master bedroom bath and closet above. Mr. Nelson explained the applicant needed one variance for lakefront setback. The ordinance states that the structure must be 25 ft from shoreline or no less than the setback of the neighboring homes.
Mr. Nelson presented exhibit A-1 a color version of the area map already submitted. When looking at the map, the Board could see that the entire house was in front of the 150 ft lakefront setback line. The new addition will be 48.1 ft from the shore line. The property’s Mountain Lake shoreline is about 405 ft long and irregular in shape. Previously the porch was enclosed and made interior space. They would like to make it an opened air porch again. Mr. Nelson presented exhibit A-2 the proposed site plan and exhibit A-3 a photo showing the rear of the house as viewed from the lake. Exhibits A-4 and A-5 were colorized versions of the proposed 1st and 2nd floor plans already submitted. Mr. Nelson explained the benefits would outweigh the detriments as the core of the home was an original Belhall house. Restoring the porch to its original use would be preferred as well as make the porch more usable. He went on to explain the original master bath above the porch has a lot of low roof lines. By increasing the area on the second floor they would be making a more usable bath area and add a closet. The height of the addition would be 29 feet. The applicant was well within the required FAR and ILC. Peter Bolo confirmed the entire house was in the shoreline set back. He felt the property was a hardship and the application should be amend to be C-1 and C-2. Arthur Max asked how much father out the new addition to the porch was. Rick Nelson said the expansion was an additional 7 ft.
Chris Richter asked if anyone from the public would like to ask questions or comment on the application. Joan Stenescu, of 4 Lake End Place, was concerned with her view of the lake. She thought the edition was fine but required some of the trees be removed to help the view. In exhibit A-3 the Board could see the large trees were trimmed very high. In exhibit A-6, a photo of the trees in the backyard, showed the ornamental tree in question. Chris Richter said the existing trees were trimmed well and the tree in question did not have anything to do with Mrs. Stenescu view corridor. Pia Abate pointed out that the applicant had the right to plant something else on their property at any time. Joff Mitchell said they would be good neighbors and prune the tree if necessary. Michael Sullivan cautioned the Board that these were two separate issues. Mary Dietz thought it was a reasonable request for this variance and thought they could work something out with the neighbor. Peter Bolo agreed. Chris Richter agreed with Michael Sullivan the issues were different. It was decided, within 60 days, Joff Mitchell would determine if the westerly most ornamental tree was disease and dying. If so, the applicant would take it down if not they will trim and thin it.
Peter Bolo thought the variance should be granted because the applicant had shown that they had a hardship due to the shoreline. Plus he thought it was a positive improvement to an historic home. Pia Abate was happy to see the porch opened up. Peter Bolo made a motion to approve the application as presented along with the 60 days to trim or remove the tree in question. A second was provided by Pia Abate. The application was passed by a vote of 7 to 0 with members Richter, Bolo, Cohen, Max, Dietz, Abate and Rusak voting to approve the application.
BETHANY RUSSO 6 Crystal Road
Blk. 33, Lot 17 Appl. #12-615
Shoreline, FAR R-AA zone
Bethany Russo, of 6 Crystal Road, presented the application. She and her husband have been working on improving the interior of the house. They would like to add a 23’ X 12.3’ sunroom room under the existing deck. The new room will maintain the current 23 ft shoreline setback and three sides will be glass. The Board determined the closest point to the shoreline of Shadow Lake was actually the deck at 17.8’ and not the new sunroom. The application was amended to reflect the change. A variance was needed for an FAR of 14%, currently at 13.3%, where 13% is allowed. Chris Richter confirmed the sunroom would be recessed 3 ft under the deck. He was concerned about the proximity of the sunroom to the shoreline. He commented the Board usually did not approve structures with 25 ft of the water. Mary Dietz asked if the Russo’s would be using a footing for the sunroom. The room would have a roof under the deck and use the original slab. Mark Cohen confirmed Michael Russo did the plans.
No one from the public was present to comment on the application.
Chairman Richter asked for comments from the Board. Arthur Max said the sunroom was under the existing deck which did not change the view of the lake so he was ok with the application. Peter Bolo thought the changes were an improvement to the house and the FAR would not be visible from the street. Since there were no neighbors present at the hearing the addition must not disrupt their view. Mary Dietz thought enclosing an area under the porch would disrupt the view. She felt it made the non-conformance more solid. Chris Richter didn’t like any type of development within 25 ft of the shoreline. He was concerned the people across the lake who had not been notified may be affected. Pia Abate asked if the applicant would consider relocating the deck. Bethany Russo said they would not because the house has sliding doors out to the deck. They thought the sunroom tucked under the deck would not be an intrusion. The basement is very dark; they thought this would add more light to the area. Chris Richter asked if they considered another place for the sunroom; no they had not. The sunroom was recessed 3 ft, it only went out the 12 ft because there was a column supporting the deck above. Pat Rusak thought the addition was very close to the shoreline and asked if the applicant would you consider only going out 7 or 8 ft. Pia Abate was concerned with how much light they would actually get with a room under the deck.
Mark Cohen made a motion to approve the application with the shoreline setback at 17.8 ft., Peter Bolo provided the second. The application was denied by a vote of 4 to 3 because 5 votes are required for FAR. Board members Bolo, Cohen, Max, and Abate voted to approve the application Richter, Dietz and Rusak voting against.
JEFF & NICOLE SALDUTTI 74 Melrose Road
Blk. 68, Lot 41 Appl. #12-616
ILC, FAR, Front, Height R-A zone
Larry Korinda, a licensed Architect, and Jeff Saldutti, of 74 Melrose Rd, presented the application. The applicants were looking for variances for front yard setback, height, FAR and ILC. All of the variance requests were for existing non-conforming conditions. Larry Korinda explained the FAR would go from 17.2% to 20.39%, the ILC would remain at 25.1%, the front setback would be 36.8’ rather than 39.8’ and the height would go from 35.25 ft. to 35.85 ft.
Exhibit A-1 was a colorized version of the site plan already submitted. Mr. Korinda pointed out the addition sets back 4.2’ in the rear to help the setback situation. To keep the ILC the same they will be reducing the driveway width and removing the side patio. Exhibit A-2 was a board consisting of 4 photos of the house from different angles. Exhibit A-3 was a colorized version of the 1st floor plan already submitted. The applicant will be keeping the original Hapgood house and adding a new kitchen and family room. The existing kitchen will become a mud room as well as an adequate powder room and closet. The living room chimney will be exposed in the kitchen.
Jeff Saldutti explained he was a professionally trained chef and his family liked to entertaining. They would like to leave the existing covered porch. Exhibit A-4 was the second floor plan colorized. In the master bedroom they will be redoing the master bath to make it more functional. The attic area over the new kitchen would be used for a walk-in closet. Exhibit A-5 was several elevations of the renovated house showing how Mr. Korinda had matched the existing roof lines. The height of the house changes from 35.2 ft to 35.85 ft because there is a drop in grade 7” for the new addition. The scale of the new wing is an appropriate size for the house. Mr. Korinda continued, each of the variance are reasonable and in spirit of the new ordinance. The house was on the market for 3 years because the kitchen was a problem. If the house was torn down it could be 2000 sq ft larger.
Peter Bolo asked if the Saldutti’s were going to break through the fireplace. They would not be changing the fireplace. They went out the side for the addition to maintain the historic home. Pat Rusak confirmed the patio would be untouched. Chris Richter asked why the applicant could not conform to 40 ft setback on the Powerville Rd side. Larry Korinda explained they would not have had room for the kitchen island. He suggested the applicant could add a landscape buffer along Powerville Road.
There was no one from the public wishing to comment on the application.
Mary Dietz asked if the applicant could have kept the kitchen addition within the foot print of the original porch. Nicole Saldutti explained they had looked at other options, such as flipping the kitchen and the eating area. They determined the eating area would not be very private in front of the house. Peter Bolo was familiar with the home and thought the plan was very good. He felt moving the house in 3 feet would be deminimus. This house really needs help and this is better than knocking it down. The applicant did agree to remove the fire pit to get rid of variance for ILC. Pia Abate thought it best not to add a landscape buffer long Powerville Road for safety reasons. Mark Cohen asked the applicants if they realized this design has reached it maximum expansion. They were aware of that.
The application was amended to remove the variance request for ILC. Mark Cohen made a motion to approve the application as amended. A second was provided by Pia Abate. The application was passed by a vote of 7 to 0 with members Richter, Bolo, Cohen, Max, Dietz, Abate and Rusak voting to approve the application.
ROBERT HOROWITZ & NANCY POLETTI 69 Tower Hill Road
Blk. 52, Lot 11 Appl. #12-617
FAR, ILC R-AA zone
Licensed Architect Seth Leeb and Robert Horowitz, of 69 Tower Hill Rd., presented the application. Seth Leeb amended the application; the Applicant and Owner are Nancy Poletti and Robert Horowitz. The Horowitz’s were asking for a small variation to their original application from February of 2012. The applicant reminded the Board the property was undersized and the house was an old Hapgood. When the final plans were ready to submit for a building permit they determined that the family room space they asked for was undersized. The approved family room was 20.6’ x 9.10’ and would not accommodate furniture. The new family room area would be 20.6’ x 14.10 ft, an addition of 5 feet. A colorized version of sheet V-2 became exhibit A-1. The applicant needed a variance for a FAR of 30.2% rather than the granted 29.2% and an ILC variance of 30.1% rather than 29.6%.
All the conditions of the prior resolution adopted March 1, 2012 would stand.
No one was present from the public.
Mary Dietz felt this application was a prime candidate for a variance. Mark Cohen asked the applicant what made him come back. Robert Horowitz responded, seeing the new ordinance for Historic Preservation. Pia Abate did not have a problem with the addition 5ft because it faced the back of the house.
Pia Abate made a motion to approve the application as amended. A second was provided by Mark Cohen. The application was passed by a vote of 7 to 0 with members Richter, Bolo, Cohen, Max, Dietz, Abate and Rusak voting to approve the application.
Other Matters / Public Comment:
There were no members of the public present.
Historic Preservation Ordinance #08-12 – The Board received copies of the new Historic Preservation Ordinance. At the Planning Board meeting the ordinance was presented as a variance that a homeowner could not receive relief from at the Board of Adjustment. Chris Richter questioned whether or not that was allowed under land use law. Michael Sullivan offered to seek clarification from the Borough Attorney.
Mark Cohen made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mary Dietz provided the second. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Shaw, Secretary