MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD

OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

May 28, 2009

 

Chair Sandy Batty 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:  Kane, Nix, Nachshen, Holmberg, Gormally, Tempesta, Shaw, Batty Absent: Selver, Bailey

Also Present:  Attorney Peter Henry, Engineer William Ryden

 

REVIEW OF MINUTES:  The minutes of the March 26, 2009 meeting were approved by voice vote.

 

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTION:

VISION EQUITIES                1 Old Bloomfield Ave.

            Bl. 118.04, Lot 2                      Appl. #09-236

            Minor Site Plan, sign                 Ol-2 zone

 

A motion was made by Stephen Shaw to adopt the resolution. The second was made by Martin Kane. The vote was carried by a 5-0 roll call vote of eligible voters.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

            KLINGENBURG                    123 Lake Drive

            Bl. 101 Lot 48                          Appl. 09-237

            Minor Subdivision                     R-A zone

 

Richard Clark, an attorney from Laddey, Clark & Ryan with offices in Sparta and Denville, began the presentation of the application. In 1941 the house received approval from the Zoning Board to locate the house 10 feet from the western sideline. In 1971 it was approved under the old sketch plat process. In1997 it was approved by the Planning Board for minor subdivision. In 2005 the application was dismissed without prejudice. Tonight the homeowner was presenting an application with a different perspective on the property.  The applicant felt they could work with almost all the requirements needed to do the subdivision. The only potential variance the property needed was the 50’ x 85’ building envelope and they may not meet the 15% steep slope ordinance due to the back of the lot dropping off to the lake. The family has lived here since the 70’s.  They would like now to subdivide the property.  There are three options before them. The first option is to subdivide the lot, take down the old house and build two conforming houses. The 2nd option is to leave the existing house and add a second home. The 3rd option is to expand the existing house.

 Stephen Shaw questioned the statements made in the second paragraph of the explanatory statement prepared by Mr. Clark.  Mr. Clark explained the applicant had also gone to the zoning officer to ask him to interpret the public records pertaining to the history of the lot. The zoning officer was not sure that two lots existed so the homeowner has submitted an application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for an interpretation of this matter. Joan Nix questioned the address of lot 52.  The lots in question are 48 and 50 not 52; there was a typo.

Peter Henry questioned the focus of tonight’s presentation to the board. He felt they should focus on just Plan A to avoid confusion.  Plan A is to subdivide the lot, take down the old house and the build two conforming houses. A discussion about how the front yard setback and lake front setback are not calculated the same took place. 

Richard Clark explained the applicant was not planning on discussing the variance possibilities tonight. We want to show the Board where the two houses would be built. 

Daren Phil of Suburban Consulting, in Mount Arlington, is an engineer and professional planner. He presented Plan A using the minor subdivision plans supplied to the board. On Sheet 1, Stephen Shaw questioned the state placing a 50 foot buffer on Mountain Lake. He thought that Mountain Lakes did not have such a buffer.  According to Mr. Phil a turtle breeding area has been identified on the opposite shore line.  The type of turtle spotted would not swim across the lake because it only lives on land. The species identification by the state requires a 50 foot buffer. On Sheet 2 the drawing show the existing conditions of the property. On Sheet 3 they show the division of the property. This drawing shows that all the bulk requirements are met with the exception of the building envelope. The rear property line on sheet 3 is determined by the deed not the actual shoreline.

Peter Henry again mentioned there are two formulas for determining front and lake setbacks. If the house comes down and creates two vacant lots, then the Lake Setback is determined by one house to the east for the vacant lot to the east.  For the second house you would determine the Lake Setback by the one house to the west for the vacant lot to the west. If you build one house at a time then the new house comes into play when figuring the Lake Setback for the second house. The front setback it is determined by averaging the two houses. 

Daren Phil stated Sheet 4 shows two new homes. The existing house is on Lot 50; the applicant wants to raze the house and start to build the new house on lot 50 first. In that case the Lake Setback would be determined by the house to the west. That house is 74 ft. from the shoreline. We will set the house in line with the house to the west.  Lot 50 would conform for rear lake setback.  On Lot 50 when calculating the front yard setback you have to take the average of the two houses not by drawing a line between the two houses.  Richard Clark pointed out that from the lakeside you do not want to block the view of the lake for your neighbor. But in the front you want to maintain the streetscape.  The applicant wanted to show were the two houses would be placed now so they do not have to come back to the board after only one was built.  Daren Phil stated the applicant needed to see how the board interpreted the ordinances and they would move the building envelope to suit the board.  Sheet 4 also shows the driveway placement.  It also shows the width the houses to be in keeping with the adjacent structures. 

On Sheet 5 they show the grading plan and storm water management plans.  Sandy Batty asked what the shading shows on sheet 5.  Sheet 5 shows the 15% steep slope in the dark areas. Sheet 6 is the Tree Management Plan which shows which trees will be removed for building and the storm water management plan.  Sheet 7 shows soil erosion.  Sheet 8 shows the construction details.

Richard Clark stated based on however the Front and Lake Setbacks are figured they could place the building envelopes to meet these ordinances.  However when considering the 50’ x 85’ building envelope requirement they have trouble with the 15% steep slope requirement. Bill Ryden also stated he did not feel the house fell with in the setback lines. Peter Henry stated the building envelopes are defined by the setbacks and within that there is a minimum building envelope requirement.  Richard Clark stated then two variances are needed, one for the proposed lot and one for the existing house coming down. Richard Clark asked if they could get an answer on the front yard setback.  Is it based on the building to the left and right or two to the right or left if you have a vacant lot?  Sandy Batty stated you go one house to each side regardless of the vacant lot. You only use the 2 houses to the left or right if it is a corner lot. Peter Henry then clarified the lakeside setback uses one house to the west for the 1st house. On lot 48 it is determined by snapping a line between the lot 50 house and house to the east.

Sandy Batty asked if the Board had questions.  Item 6 from Bill Ryden’s review letter concerning the demolition of house was questioned.  Richard Clark said he will discuss this with client. The Board would like Shade Tree Commission to review tree plan.  Daren Phil stated there would be about 250 cubic yards of dirt removed for the 2 lots. Bill Ryden told the applicant that they must get their soil removal approvals at the Planning Board rather than later in the construction office.  Item 9 concerning the building heights need to be verified with the architect.  Items 10 and 11 will happen at the construction office. Cory Nachshen asked about the French drains around the house that drain to the system. Darren Phil told him they were taking all roof water into the system for clean recharge. The runoff from the driveways and other areas will filter through the lawn since they are not clean water.  There is an overall net decrease in run off.

Richard W. Nelson, an architect, with offices in Mountain Lakes stated he had prepared a plan for each lot. Exhibit A -1 showed the floor plan (it is larger version of the plans that were included in the packet). Whenever there has been a vacant lot we have used 40 foot front yard setback in the past.  The homes will be small and compact looking from the front.  The garages are also in the front of the house.  He plans to have both houses look different. Exhibit A -2 shows the front elevation of one home with stucco and stone on the exterior and 6 over 1 windows. The side elevation (A – 3) and rear elevation (A-4) were shown.  It is his intention to stay within the height restrictions for the rear elevation of the house and will not exceed 35 feet; it will be 34.8 feet or less. Both driveway ways are placed off the side yard setback. Two new homes will look smaller and fit in the neighborhood better than one large home. For the left lot Mr. Nelson flipped the plan. Exhibit A-5 shows the floor plan of the second home. The front elevation (A-6) shows a Dutch colonial style home with siding rather than stucco. Square footage for the houses is 2798 square feet on lot 50 and on lot 48 it would be 2962 square feet. This square footage does not include the third floor area which may be 500 additional square feet.  Both houses meet FAR. Mr. Nelson did an exercise showing a single larger home. The house becomes very long and looks very large from the road. Exhibit A – 7 (Not submitted with the application and handed out at the meeting) showed the front elevations for a larger home verses two smaller homes.  Mr. Nelson told the board that by putting up two houses you gain additional open space verses when you added on to the existing house.

The following questions were asked from the public. Frank Luzzi of 115 Lake Drive stated the building envelope with steep slopes was the problem back when the 2005 application was made.  Janice Gewirtz of 127 Lake Drive asked how you figure the lake setback. Joe Riccardi of 110 Lake Drive asked the board when they will be voting. He thought it was a good idea to digest what has been said.

The applicant asked to be carried over to the June 25th meeting. They will try to submit additions to the application two weeks prior to the meeting.

Stephen Shaw asked about a new house being constructed under the Highlands Scarce Resources Constraints and DEP water restrictions which placed a water ban in Mountain Lakes. Should the board take this into consideration for this application?

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

 

Master Plan Committee – Joan Nix told the board the subcommittee would be ready to make a presentation at the July meeting.

 

Highlands Committee – No report was made.

 

Ordinance Committee – Peter Holmberg and Sandy Batty represent the planning board on this Committee.  The changes they are considering are in response to the professional’s request.  The recommendations are also being looked at by the Board of Adjustment. There are 5 ordinances changes or additions that are being reviewed. Sandy will bring them back to the committee.

  1. Extension of Variances – The recommendation was to grant extensions beyond the existing 18 month limit.  That extension would be for an additional 18 months. Charlie Gormally suggested they insert a standard for asking for an extension by the applicant such as good cause or extenuating circumstances. Peter Holmberg agreed.
  2. Floor Area – Joan Nix wanted a clarification as to what a breezeway actually was. Sandy Batty stated they were counted in the FAR if they are enclosed.  Stephen Shaw question where the 500 square foot extension for porches came from. Is the idea like the garages, you get 500 sq ft and the balance you have to count toward FAR.  Discussion ensued as to what should be included in the 500 square feet. Peter Holmberg felt this may need to be rewritten since it is so unclear.  Shaw and Nix were not in favor of the porch change that limited the applicant to 500 square feet. Joan Nix also felt the last line in the existing ordinance did not make sense.  Peter Holmberg questioned what they were trying to regulate here. Nix also explained how we currently are counting chimneys in FAR. Sandy Batty stated that the ordinance should be sent back to the committee.
  3. Stone Walls – The ordinance explores the addition of stone wall in the front yard. The Planning Board was ok with how the ordinance as written. Charles Gormally question if we are eliminating or including stone piers that stand alone. Sandy Batty thought that maybe it should be included in the front yard setback section rather than fences section of our ordinances. She will have the committee review the free standing piers.
  4. Supplementary Bulk Regulations – The planning board focused on the Lakefront Exceptions.  Should the front yard setback calculation and lakefront calculation be done the same? Should the committee explore this?  Discussion ensured and it was determined that the two setbacks are achieving different things and the calculation should be different. It was determined this ordinance should be sent back to the committee to clarify this concern.
  5. Pervious Buffer – This ordinance is designed to get driveways and properties off the property line. Stephen Shaw questioned how was the 2.5 foot buffer was determined? Peter Holmberg suggested the committee change last line to “other impervious surfaces on to the adjacent properties”. He suggested that maybe we want to write the ordinance to state that there be no driveways placed less than 2.5 feet from the property line. It was determined that this also needed to go back to committee.

 

OTHER MATTERS & PUBLIC COMMENTS:

 

Stephen Shaw told the board he was looking for recommendations for the Planning Board’s vacant spot.

 

A motion was made by Stephen Shaw to close the meeting.  Peter Holmberg seconded that motion.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11 p.m.

 

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                    Cynthia Shaw, Secretary