MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD

OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

May 22, 2008

Chairman Mike Lightner read the Open Public Meeting Advertisement Notice:  Adequate notice of this meeting was given to the Citizen and the Daily Record, posted with the Borough Clerk and the Bulletin Board, and made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.

ROLL CALL:

Members Present:  Nix, Selver (arr.7:45), Dunn, Batty, Davis, Tempesta, Palmer,  

            Lightner                        Absent:  Shaw, Loveys      

Also Present:  Attorney Peter Henry, Engineer William Ryden

REVIEW OF MINUTES:  The revised minutes of the April 24, 2008 meeting were approved by voice vote. 

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Carried from April 24 to May 22, 2008:

      ROBERT C. & MARY ELLEN WAGGONER           26 Lake Drive

Block 101, Lot 105                                                      Appl. #08-234

Minor Subdivision                                                         RA zone

The applicants’ attorney, Maryanne Brennan, reviewed the particulars of the lot.  They propose to demolish the single family structure, subdivide the lot and construct a single family home on each of the two new lots.  The first lot is identified as 105.2, closest to the Mountain Lakes Club; the second is 105.1, the adjacent lot to the east.  Each of the two new lots is larger than the minimum size required in the RA zone.  Both homes will conform to all bulk requirements with the exception of the front yard setback.  The minimum building envelopes require a variance because the lots have an unusual configuration, tapering slightly toward the lake and reducing the width of the envelopes to 47.2 feet.  The frontyard variance is requested based on the setback of the neighboring Mountain Lakes Club. 

Attorney Henry questioned whether there was a disparity between the new lot designations of 105.1 and 105.01.  Brennan said that the identification would be determined by the Tax Assessor.  The first house to be constructed will be the one closest to the Club, so the second house would not require a frontyard setback variance.  Henry asked, if that house is constructed first, would that create a lakefront setback requirement for the second house?  Architect Larry Korinda and Engineer Spillane thought the setback issue would not be a problem.  The conceptual rendering showed that houses constructed on these lots could conform to the bulk requirements.

Board member Paul Selver arrived.  Attorney Henry said that no testimony had been presented, so Selver was eligible for this application.

Applicant Mary Ellen Waggoner was sworn in.  Her husband is traveling and could not attend the hearing this evening.

Architect Larry Korinda was sworn in and accepted as an expert witness.  Korinda  described Exhibit A1, a rendering created to demonstrate that the houses could be set back from Lake Drive and would fit within the building envelope.  Exhibit A2 showed elevations of each house from the street and the lake sides.  House #1, closest to the Club, has gables and hipped roof lines; Korinda said this design would relate to the architecture of the Club and Lake Drive School.  Both houses are 46.5 feet wide; #1 is 95’ deep, house #2 is 84’ feet deep.  House #2 is more of a Hapgood style, whereas the other house resembles the Belhall style.  House #1 would be 5010 square feet in floor area; house #2 would be 4683 square feet.  The design of house #1 would create 15.97% of floor area; #2 would be 14.96%.   The coverage on house #1 would be 23.4%, on #2, 22.3%.    Those requirements will be maintained; they do not plan to go beyond the maximum of 25% coverage.

The adjusted frontyard setback on house #1 would be 133.3 feet; house #2 would be 142.7 feet from the street.  The school and the house to the east are both closer to the street.  Korinda testified that the owner of the house to the east said he was comfortable with this proposed location.  In response to Brennan’s question regarding the structures in the front of the Club, Korinda said that this is an unusual situation; the Borough code would not have anticipated this setback requirement.  Joan Nix asked if the terrace is considered the point from which to measure the front setback.

Bill Ryden – if house #1 is built first, house, #2 needs to be moved forward 10 feet, but they would still not exceed the front setback requirement.  The plans would need to be revised.

Barbara Palmer asked whether the storm water regulations would prevent construction this close to the lake.  Bill Ryden said he is not aware of any limitations. 

Attorney Brennan said there could be a condition of approval that the sanitary sewer easement would be moved to conform.  They have requested a Letter of Interpretation from the DEP and would agree to a condition of approval for the subdivision.

William Denzler, licensed professional planner, was sworn in.  He presented Exhibits A4, aerial views of the property and A5, overall neighborhood area.  He testified that the original request for a variance for the steep slopes (involving approximately 40 square  feet) on lot 2 is no longer required because the envelope has been moved forward.  Denzler said that his experience in neighboring communities has shown that homes on the lakes are exempt from the DEP restrictions of the 50 foot setback.  However, the proposed houses of this subdivision will meet the 50 foot setback from the lake.

The three variances sought in this application are:  front yard on lot 01; 167.7 required, 133.3 proposed.  The other two variances are created by the building rectangles because the lots taper toward the lake side of the property.  Denzler said that the variances could be granted on the C1 hardship criteria (there would be no substantial detriment to the public good) or on the C2 hardship because of the shape of the property.  A hardship is created by the location of the Mountain Lakes Club because it is set back 183.2 feet from Lake Drive.  The building envelopes are deficient by approximately two feet in width.    Both lots will meet the lakefront setback requirements.

Paul Selver asked about the width of each lot at the lake.  Denzler said they were approximately 98 feet wide at that location.  Barbara Palmer thought that the width was 97.2’.    The house immediately to the east is 152.2 feet from the street, Denzler did not know the setback of the next house to the east.

Joan Nix asked about what appeared to be a structure or terrace behind the adjoining house.  Denzler said, if it is a patio, that would make the lakefront setback of house #2 less restrictive.

Engineer Michael Spillane described the changes made to the refined plan.  He concurred that house #2 could be moved forward and still fit within the envelope.  Spillane testified that the lots are at least 31,000 square feet each and the homes designed will fit within the lots and the neighborhood.  The DEP will rule that these are man made water bodies and we believe this proposal is compliant. 

Board questions:  Paul Selver asked if there is a commitment to build these specific houses or would the lots be sold.  Brennan said that the architectural style and size are fixed, but there could be minor changes.  Lightner noted that we are not approving the homes, they are proposed for informational purposes, as requested.  Henry agreed that they could diverge from what is submitted as long as they are compliant.  The request was that the applicants demonstrate that a house could be constructed; they were not required to submit precise plans for a particular house.

Joan Nix pointed out that the house to be demolished is listed as Hapgood #2 and she believes that should be noted in the Environmental Impact Statement.

Brennan pointed out that there is no ordinance preventing demolition of a Hapgood structure.  She noted that this house is not consistent with other dwellings in the neighborhood.  Selver asked whether the original house has been changed so that it is not identifiable as a Hapgood.  Brennan replied that the house is unsightly.  Michael Lightner asked if this request has a negative impact on the Master Plan.  Peter Henry said that the Plan speaks of the significance of the historic character of the community; however, there is no regulation preventing destruction.  Henry noted that there could have been enough alterations to the structure to negate the historical impact.  The applicant has asked for a waiver of the EIS; the Board may adjust the requirement for this document.

William Denzler referred to a 2003 Zoning Board resolution, Exhibit A6, approving destruction of this house and construction of a new larger house.  The ZBA document did not mention any concerns with the historic nature of the house.  That Board was not aware that this was a Hapgood structure.  Lightner pointed out that the Historic District designation was not created until 2005.

Architect Korinda testified that he has been in the house and never recognized it as a Hapgood structure.  The additions and alterations have negated the Hapgood style.  He believes that the new homes proposed are more compatible with the Hapgood and Belhall style.  Bill Ryden clarified that an EIS is not a required checklist item for a minor subdivision.

Board discussion:  Barbara Palmer - I have given this a lot of thought.  I believe the building envelope requirement was developed to prevent homes from being too close together.  This is in a very unique location, across from the Memorial Park and next to the significant Mountain Lakes Club.  She believes the property is too narrow to accommodate two houses.  She does not see the benefits to the municipality.

Mike Lightner agreed with Palmer’s comments.  Although the adjacent properties are similar to those proposed, it is inconsistent with the Master Plan to create lots with variances.  He said he also would have a problem destroying a historic house and subdividing a historic piece of property.

Paul Selver – I never looked at this as a Hapgood house.  If you want to preserve it, it should resemble the original structure.  I believe these variances are less significant and less troubling than variances we have approved previously.

Frank Dunn – I have no problem tearing down this house; the variances are minor, the result would be more attractive houses than that existing.

Louise Davis – I do have a problem increasing the density in this neighborhood and granting variances on lakefront property.

Sandy Batty – I question the building envelope ordinance but I believe this is a test of that ordinance.  I think the ordinance should be upheld.

Joan Nix – I don’t like the concept of ignoring the historic structure on this property.  I think it is more critical that Hapgood’s planning process created only one house on this property.

Joe Tempesta – I am new, but one of the guiding principles on a subdivision is the lot area; these variances are minor.  But I believe that two homes on this property would not be a detriment to the neighborhood.  I don’t believe it would have a negative impact.

Attorney Brennan noted that the Esplanade subdivision was granted with building envelope variances.  The front yard setback variance is created because they want to keep the houses back from the street.  Variances are intended to address lots that are slightly unusual.  Your position as a Board member is not to enforce the code, it is to consider variances.  Two modest size dwellings would be preferable to a very large structure.

Brennan asked to carry the application to June 26 because Mr. Waggoner would be available at that time.

It was noted that a quorum of this Board is five members and everyone attending would be eligible to vote.  The application was carried to June 26 with no further notice required.

Sandy Batty asked about the status of the Borough’s water supply.  Tempesta said that well #3 would not be in service for at least a year.  Ryden said that one new house could be connected to the Borough water supply because it is replacing a house, but the second house could not receive municipal water.  They would need to get approval for a well from the NJDEP.  Louise Davis said that an additional house would also impact our COAH requirement.  We are activating well #3 to improve our firm capacity.  Davis also noted that we currently have no private wells in the community because, during the sewering process, we required everyone to hook up to the Borough supply.  Tempesta said that, once we have met our firm capacity, all properties with wells will be required to hook up to our system.

COMMITTEE REPORTS: 

Master Plan Reexamination - Chair Barbara Palmer reported that the Committee members expect to present the report at the June meeting.

Joan Nix asked if we should address signage.  The controversial real estate signs are actually permitted in our town.  Realtor John von Sternberg of Coldwell Banker said that they have received pressure from their clients and may need to rescind their long-standing “gentlemen’s agreement” and use signs other than for open houses.  Louise Davis said that houses on the market with signs have not sold faster than those without the signs.

Chairman Mike Lightner amended his resignation date to June 27.

In response to a question from the April meeting, Peter Henry reported that the Master Plan committee in Vineland was appointed by the mayor and the members represented various boards.  There was no majority from any Board.  An effective majority can be less than an actual majority of the board.  The judge decided that the public should have had an opportunity to see government in action and didn’t get the chance.  Advisory committees may meet if they don’t have any decision authority.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                    Marge Jackson, Secretary