MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF
Vice-Chair Chris Richter called the meeting to order and read the Open Public Meeting Advertisement Notice: Notice of this meeting was given to the Citizen and the Daily Record, posted with the Borough Clerk and on the Bulletin Board and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Moody, Richter, Kane, Max, Rusak, Sullivan
(arrived
Absent: Gotthelf, Bolo, Sheasby Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan
REVIEW OF MINUTES:
The minutes of the November 3 meeting were approved by voice vote with the deletion of the statement regarding the intent of the zoning law on page 3, 2nd paragraph.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
STEVEN & MEGAN SHUHET Appl. #05-465
Chris Richter made the motion of approval, carried by 1-0 roll call of the only eligible voter.
NICK & PAM BAYVEL Appl.#05-466
David Kane made the motion of approval, seconded by Pat Rusak and carried by 3-0 roll call of eligible voters.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Chris Richter announced that no new applications would begin
after
Interpretation:
Referring to his
This request comes as a result of Bill Ryden’s
interpretation that all three sides needed to be measured and averaged.
He referred to the first application that was submitted under the new ordinance and he believes it is being misinterpreted.
Zoning Officer Dan Hagberg: if you are dealing with average grade, you are dealing with elevations that could produce a height on one side that would be much higher than 38 feet. He and Bill Ryden believe that average was referring to the average of all sides.
David Kane asked how high one of the sides would be.
There were no public comments. Chris Richter moved that the Board provide interpretation of Ordinance 14-05 to Dan Hagberg and Bill Ryden that calculations of the average height of non-street frontage should be interpreted to utilize the average of all non-street elevations. This should not be construed to apply to individual non-street elevations. David Kane seconded the motion, approved by 5-0 roll call vote.
ROBERT VOLOSIN Appl. #05-467
There was no document for formal withdrawal so the application was dismissed without prejudice with a motion by Jim Moody, seconded by Arthur Max, carried by voice vote.
Carried from November 3:
JOHN HEIN
& MIZAR TURDIU
Bl. 78, Lot 44 Appl. #05-468
Shoreline RA zone
Architect Tina Vosco presented
the application. Vosco reviewed that the
Board had concern about the shoreline setback and she described the location of
the house on
From the Public: Jay Eveleth, adjacent neighbor at
Comments reflected that they had addressed Board concerns. The encroachment is deminimis. The motion for approval was made by David Kane, seconded by Pat Rusak and carried by 5-0 roll call vote.
Because the the following two applicants
were informed that there would not be seven Board members, they asked to have
their applications carried. Jim Moody
made the motion, seconded by Arthur Max, and carried by voice vote to carry the
Bajaj and
NICOLAI
& ALEKS
Bl. 75 Lot 20 Appl.#05-464
FAR, front, side RA zone
BALWINDER BAJAJ 100 Pollard Rd.
Bl. 110, Lot 36 Appl. #05-469
Side RA zone
New application:
SCOTT & ANDREA KIMMELMAN 90 Tower Hill Rd.
Bl. 40 Lot 16 Appl. #05-470
FAR, ILC & front RAA zone
Andrea Kimmelman presented the application. Attorney Sullivan explained the process to the applicant, i.e. all five Board members need to approve your floor area variance. You could carry the application or you could present your case and then either ask for a vote or ask that the vote be carried. Chris Richter suggested that she could present, hear our comments and possibly go back and consider. Kimmelman testified that their property is unique because the house sits sideways on the lot and it is not clear where the front of the house is located. They propose adding a porch to identify the front of the house. They also want to add a two-car detached garage in the front; it would be facing the side. They also wish to expand the kitchen and add a mudroom. She pointed out that the FAR is already exceeding the 13% ordinance limit; this plan would be a modest increase in floor area because portions of two currently enclosed porches would be opened. The plan would decrease improved lot coverage because a semi-circular driveway would be reduced. The garage proposal would create a 34’ front setback, non-conforming only at the corner of the garage. The front yard exception does not apply to this property, so the 40 foot setback is in effect. Chris Richter questioned why the garage couldn’t be set back to conform. Kimmelman pointed out that the area to the left contains an old rhododendron garden with staircases that date back to the beginning of the house. Photos marked Exhibit A3 to show the view of the rhodos from the house. Kimmelman said that the architect had been asked to design a conforming garage but there were various reasons that alternatives did not work. The FAR is high because the entire third floor is included. Richter asked whether the architect had determined if the height in the rear would cause the basement to be included in floor area. She did not know. David Kane asked if they had considered changing the direction of the garage so the wider side would face the street. Andrea said they tried many variations, this one worked best. David Kane pointed out that the adjoining house is also close to the street.
Public: Wendy Coates,
Board comments: Rusak – would not approve, would like the garage to be moved back six feet or next to the house. She would approve the other variances if the garage were moved, even if ILC is increased. Moody – would approve as submitted; FAR and ILC are not excessive. David Kane – agrees that, other than moving it back, this is the logical location. Kimmelman pointed out that, if the garage were pushed back, they would need a sideyard variance and would lose the landscaping. She believes that the landscaping is as important to the integrity as the house. Richter – has no issue with FAR or ILC, he is still not convinced that the garage couldn’t be moved. He doesn’t think that rhododendron is reason to grant a variance. Kimmelman noted that if the garage were moved back, the blacktop would come right up to the house. Richter is accepting Andrea’s testimony that the landscaping feature is critical. She noted that the rhodos were the feature that convinced them to buy the house. Arthur Max – six feet is not that significant, this seems to be the most reasonable approach. Attorney Sullivan suggested that the vote could be bifurcated. Five votes are required for FAR, three are required for the C variances.
Jim Moody moved to approve the FAR variance; Chris Richter added the condition of confirmation that the lower story is complied with under Ordinance 14-05; he doesn’t think it is an issue. Chris Richter seconded the motion, carried by 5-0 vote. The motion to approve the ILC was made by Chris Richter, seconded by Jim Moody, carried by 5-0 vote. The front yard setback motion was made by Arthur Max, seconded by David Kane, carried by 4-1 roll call vote (Rusak denied).
The meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Mage Jackson, Secretary