MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

December 6, 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: Albergo, Rusak, Bolo, Richter, Max and Dietz

Absent: Abate, Gallo

Also Absent: Attorney Michael Sullivan

 

REVIEW OF MINUTES Peter Bolo made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 1st meeting. Arthur Max provided the second; the minutes were approved by voice vote by all members.

 

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS: none

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS: - All witnesses were sworn in by Chairman Chris Richter

 

RICHARD FONTE & ROBIN SPATH                                                31 Ball Road

Blk. 96, Lot 43.01                                                          Appl. #12-620

ILC, SIDE                                                                    R-AA zone

 

Carolle Huber, a licensed landscape Architect in the state of NJ, and Robin Spath and Richard Fonte of 31 Ball Road would be presenting the application. Ms. Huber explained the landscape plan proposed a patio and retaining walls to create a backyard area. The applicant has problems with standing water and excessive erosion behind the house when it rains. They also wanted to add a generator for power outages.

Carolle Huber stated the existing ILC was 33.1% and they were proposing 32.2% where 25% was allowed. The erosion occurring in the backyard has created an unusable space.  Right now the area outside the back door is covered in pea gravel. The house was built in the 50s and recently renovated. Chris Richter questioned what the ILC was before the renovation and asked if there were previous resolutions or applications on the property; there were none.

Mary Dietz asked which walls on the plan were being added.  Ms. Huber said the gray walls are the existing and the beige walls are the new ones.  Ms. Dietz asked if they could do a single wall in the rear of the house.  Ms. Huber said they would have had a 5 ft wall and were concerned with safety so they went with 2 walls at 3 ft. tall. Exhibit A-1, the original survey dated 10/24/2008, was presented. This survey was what she used to create the existing lot coverage and the delta was the new 3 ft tall walls. The new front wall is typical of those on the street and matches what is already there. Mary Dietz stated the front wall can’t exceed 30” as stated in the new ordinance 245-15 P 2.  Robin Spath explained they needed the front wall because after every rain storm they have to clean the street. Carolle Huber said she could change the front wall to a maximum height of 30” and they would make it out of stone rather than keystone block. Michael Sullivan clarified; the new front wall would not exceed the height but would still be included in the ILC calculation.  Peter Bolo confirmed the closest building to the rear property line was a garage and the wall in the back of the property did not belong to them. Arthur Max asked Ms. Huber what the elevations were for the walls. Mary Dietz pointed out the back yard grade changes for the new walls were not significant.

Chris Richter again asked what the legal ILC was for the house. The Board concluded the house would have to be at 25% ILC or below to get a building permit. The Chair asked the Board Administrator to take a look at the building permit for the renovation. When the applicant purchased the house the driveway and walls were also new.

The Chair suggested the Board move on to the request for a side yard variance for a new generator. The applicant was requesting a setback of 19 ft but Mr. Richter said he saw opportunity for the applicant to conform. Mr. Fonte stated the only other place they could install it was in front of the air conditioning units but doing so would eating into the backyard space and reduces the corridor to the backyard. Placing it in the back of the house also put the generator closer to the neighbor’s backyard. The side location they selected has a lot of greenery for screening. Chris Richter stated they could fit the generator in the backyard if they reconfigured their plan. Arthur Max commented the Board has turned down similar situations. Mary Dietz suggested they notch out the retaining wall and put in the generator, the closer the unit gets to the property line the more it disturbs the neighbor. Richard Fonte stated putting it on the side puts it closest to the neighbor’s front yard, disturbing them less. Chris Richter said the applicant had another alternative location for the unit. Peter Bolo said he agreed with Mr. Richter, he has the same unit. Michael Sullivan confirmed the applicant would be amending the application to remove the setback request for generator.

Chris Richter asked if there ILC could be reduced elsewhere to balance out what they were adding. Could they possibly reduce some of the driveway? Richard Fonte said they needed the entire width of the driveway just to get out of the garage. Carolle Huber concurred, the site was very difficult.  Pat Rusak asked about the drainage. Carolle Huber said the walls were constructed with drains behind them, the drains were piped to the front and the water would be released in the front yard. The Chair asked if there were any comments from the public, no one was present.

He then asked for comments from the Board.  Peter Bolo felt the applicant has a good argument for hardship and the plan not only was attractive but it helped with the erosion issues. He felt the patio was reasonable size. William Albergo agreed with Dr. Bolo. Pat Rusak felt the applicant truly had a hardship and liked the plan. Chris Richter requested the applicant add screening plantings about 36” high for the neighbors on the easterly side of the property. The applicant produced exhibit A-2; a photo showing the vegetation on the side of the house.

Peter Bolo made a motion to approve the application for a variance for ILC, landscape along the easterly property line and the 30” wall in the front of the property. William Albergo provided the second. The request for the side yard setback for a generator was withdrawn. The Board Voted 6 -0 to approve the ILC variance with members Albergo, Rusak, Bolo, Richter, Max and Dietz voting in favor.

 

OU & CHENFANG XU                                               11 Ronarm Drive

Blk. 130.01, Lot 15                                                        Appl. # 12-621

FAR                                                                             R-A zone

 

Ou and Chenfang Xu would be presenting their application this evening. Before they started they needed to amend their application.  The block number listed in the application should have been 130.01 rather than 130.  The Xu’s bought the house with the understanding they could finish the space above the garage.  They presented exhibit A-1, a brochure created by the real estate firm for the seller showing the space above the oversized garage as unfinished.  When they went to apply for the permit to finish the space they found out they were in need of a variance for FAR.  Chris Richter confirmed the site plan showing the existing conditions and the driveway were already installed when they purchased the home. Mr. Xu said what was presented in the application already existed. Michael Sullivan explained to the applicant they need to get 5 positive votes to approve their request for a variance.  Mr. Xu understood and wanted to continue.

Peter Bolo stated the framed interior space over the garage should have required a variance for FAR when the garage was built. Mary Dietz asked about the height of the walls in the unfinished space.  Mr. Xu stated some were 6 ft in height and others were 8 ft. The walls to divide the unfinished space into rooms have not been installed. Chris Richter explained; if the walls were 5 ft in height the space would not count as FAR.  Mr. Xu’s Architect said all the walls were 6ft and over so he included them in the FAR calculation. Chris Richter said he was fine with approving the application but needed to determine the correct percentage for FAR. Mr. Richter confirmed the dotted lines on page A2-02 of the plan were in fact 8 ft. The ceilings slope down to a perimeter wall of 6 ft at the lowest point. Michael Sullivan read the definition of an attic was “a space, under a sloping roof, in which the possible floor area with headroom of five ft”. The calculation had been done correctly. The request would be for an FAR of 18.25% when 18.25% existed and 17% was allowed.

No one from the public was present to comment on the application.

The Chair asked for Board comments.  Mary Dietz commented she could see there was nothing that could be changed to reduce the FAR and the garage was turned to the side.  Peter Bolo thought the situation was a hardship. Chris Richter thought house was not out of scale with the property.

The Board requested the Administrator check with the building department to see what was approved when the plans to build the garage were submitted.

Arthur Max made a motion to approve the application as submitted, William Albergo provided the second. The Board Voted 6 -0 to approve the application with members Albergo, Rusak, Bolo, Richter, Max and Dietz voting in favor.

Mr. Xu asked if he could start his project now that he had approval from the Board. The Board said it was ok for Mr. Xu to start early.

 

Other Matters / Public Comment:

There was no one from the public present.

 

Mary Dietz made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Pat Rusak provided the second. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm. 

                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

           

 

                                                                                                            Cynthia Shaw, Secretary