MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

April 6, 2006

 

Vice-Chairman 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:  Richter, Kane, Moody, Sheasby, Bolo, Sullivan, Rusak, Max

Absent:  Gotthelf                       Also Present:  Attorney Michael Sullivan

 

REVIEW OF MINUTES:  The minutes of the February 2 meeting were approved by voice vote. 

 

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:      

                                                                                                                                                               

RICHARD J. TKACH                       Appl. #06-476

David Kane made the motion to approve the resolution of denial, seconded by Jim Moody and carried by 6-0 roll call of eligible voters.

                                                               

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Vice-Chair Chris Richter announced that no new applications would begin after 10:30.  If any calculations are not verified, the application will not be considered but will be carried to the next meeting.  Application material is required to be on record 10 days prior to the hearing. 

 Carried from Feb. 2

THOMAS & NICOLE RENNA        132 Lake Drive

Bl. 102, Lot 68                                   Appl. #06-475

FAR, ILC                                           RA zone

Nicole Renna chose to proceed with six eligible members after being informed that the FAR variance would require a minimum of five affirmative votes.  Sheet A1, revised  2/17/06, was marked as Exhibit A1, dated 4/06.  Renna distributed the revised ILC calculations prepared by Richard S. Hudson.  They reduced the proposed size of the patio by 29 square feet.  In 1997 their ILC was at 38.54%.  This proposal is 38.75%.  Richter noted that they had been asked to stay within the existing variance limitations at the previous hearing.  Renna said that she had reduced the patio.  Richter asked if they couldn’t also reduce the driveway.  Renna said that they have four drivers in the family and they park their cars in that area, so they don’t need to park in the front circular driveway.  The proposed patio is 460 square feet.

David Kane pointed out that the sheet from Richard Hudson did not match the calculations provided by the architect Jeffry McEntee.  Richter reviewed the variances requested:  FAR, ILC. 

 

Richter asked if there were any comments from the audience.  Fred Kantor, 81 Hanover Road, said that he has the floor and has the right to speak until he relinquishes the floor.  He has done a lot of research and, since this Board does not have any rules adopted, free speech is allowed.  Richter repeated that this public session is used for audience members to comment on the application before the Board.  Other comments can be made under agenda item #6, titled ‘Other Matters.’  Kantor began to read from the Municipal Land Use Law New Jersey Statutes.

Two officers came in to remove Mr. Kantor.  The Board and members of the audience pleaded with Kantor to be reasonable, noting that there were six applications on the agenda and he would have the right to speak during agenda item #6.  Kantor stated that as soon as he has the floor, he may continue until he relinquishes it.  Kantor suggested that Richter sit down because he was uncomfortable with him being that close.  Richter called a 10 minute recess.  The meeting reconvened at 8:20 and the roll call was repeated.  Kantor stated that he still had the floor and continued to read   He said that the Board has no rules or definition of order so he intended to give the Board a civics lesson.  When he was asked to be sworn in during the February meeting, he thought that violated his rights from a public body with no rules.  He threatened the policeman that, if he were arrested, he would be filed with a false arrest suit.  Since there are no rules, he cannot violate a rule.  Richter said he would personally file a complaint against him because he is out of order.  We have the rights of a quisi-judicial body.  Kantor was removed from the meeting by the police officers.

 

Richter asked if there was any public comment on the Renna application:  none expressed.

Board comment:  David Kane asked for confirmation that Renna would be willing to reduce the coverage request to achieve the 38.54%.  Kane moved that the application be approved with a condition of approval to remove the excess square footage of the patio.  Renna agreed.

The motion was seconded by Jim Moody and approved by 6-0 roll call vote.

 

New applications:

ELISE COLLINS                               204 Boulevard

Bl. 80, Lot 24.01                                Appl. #06-474

Front, side                                          RA zone

Collins currently lives in Boonton Township and owns the subject property on the Boulevard.  Engineer Marc Walker was accepted as an expert.  Exhibit A1, a photo of 240 Boulevard, showed the garage attachment similar to this proposal.  Exhibit A2 showed a detached garage facing the Boulevard at 3 Lake Drive, two doors south of the Collins house.  A3 was a side view of this house and the adjacent house with the covered port cochere.    The average required front setback is 56.4 feet.  The existing garage fronts on the Boulevard.  They propose to make the one-car garage similar to that at 240 Boulevard with a side entry.  The roof of the garage would be lower than the Boulevard elevation.  They are requesting approval for 42.4 feet front yard setback.  They also requested a side yard set back of 17.9 feet for a chimney so that the living room window can be in the rear of the room.  Otherwise, if the chimney were in the rear, the window would look out to the neighbor’s house.  The existing house is 22 feet from the property line, so only the chimney would extend beyond that.

 

Officer Ough said that Mr. Kantor had been arrested and would not be allowed back to the meeting. 

 

The Collins hearing continued.  The house to the left is set back 47.7 feet, to the right is 65.1’, resulting in an average of 49.9’.  When questioned why the garage width couldn’t be reduced, Walker said that a reasonable space is required between the steps into the garage to the car.  Collins said that she needs extra storage space because she has four children.  Kane questioned whether the house wouldn’t be sold after they got approval and pointed out that a variance is granted to a piece of property and is not conditioned to the family.  Collins pointed out that the ILC, at 23.5% will be reduced by over 200 feet by eliminating walkways and the patio.  Walker noted that if the garage were left as is, they could expand the house to the rear.  The roof is at its lowest point close to the Boulevard.   Bob Sheasby asked if a garage could not have been put under the house at the rear of the structure.  Walker noted that it would require more impervious coverage to create the driveway and that would not be an efficient solution.  They have a building permit and have begun renovations that do not require a variance.  The side entry garage is more aesthetically pleasing and allows a lower roofline.  The Board discussed a smaller garage to reduce the setback request.  If this variance is not approved, the addition could be added to the rear of the house.

From the public:  Joe Bednar, 208 Boulevard, was concerned about the extension which would be visible and block their view of the Boulevard.  Walker noted the garage could still come forward 17 feet without variance relief.

Board comments:  Jim Moody – has no problem with the chimney proposal and he likes the aesthetics of this garage plan.  Rusak – would not approve the garage in the front.  Kane agreed, thinks there are alternatives to a single car garage with a width of 1 1/2.  Max – because it is the Boulevard and there is an alternative, he would not approve.  Bolo agreed; he feels that there are areas on the Boulevard where the houses encroach onto the road.  Sullivan agreed.  Richter  described his concept that they could have the garage in the front with a reduced depth.  Collins asked that the chimney be approved and she will submit a revision for the front variance.  Attorney Sullivan noted that if they comply with the 49.9’ set back, they will not need to return.  The motion for the sideyard variance was made by Jim Moody, seconded by Chris Richter and carried by 7-0 roll call vote.  Collins accepted the extension to carry the frontyard variance request to May 4.

 

ETHAN & SARINA GRODOFSKY 184 Laurel Hill Rd.

Bl. 55 Lot 8                                        Appl.#06-477

Front yard                                           RAA zone

The applicants were accompanied by Architect Joan Nix.  Nix presented a five-photo board, Exhibit A1.  Nix described the request to add a two-car garage to the left of the house plus a two-story addition to the existing house, connecting the garage to the house.  The proposed garage would be angled for aesthetic reasons, creating the frontyard variance.  The existing detached garage is only 11.8 feet from Laurel Hill so the proposed garage addition would not be perceived as being too close to the street.  The Grodofskys did not want to remove the original detached garage.

Paul Ferguson, neighbor at 156 Laurel Hill, said that he approves the garage concept and thinks it would be attractive.

Board comments:  Arthur Max noted that, since the detached garage to the left of this property is being demolished, he would like to see this garage removed also.  Sheasby  said he would prefer to have the garage doors face the street.  Nix showed a model she had created of the proposed structure.  Sheasby expressed concern that it would grow into a guest apartment without Borough approval.  Considering the grandeur of this home, he would prefer that it be more linear.  Bolo was satisfied with the design.  Sullivan – is very familiar with the house and does not have an objection to the existing detached garage.  Richter – the garage addition is set back farther than the house so the variance is technical.  Moody would approve.  Kane – approves removal of the existing driveway, but he had thought the garage would come down.  Rusak – understands the angle of the proposed garage; we should not request removal of an historic structure.  Peter Bolo moved that the application be approved as submitted, seconded by Chris Sullivan and approved by 7-0 roll call.

 

TARA & LARRY PAGE                    81 Boulevard

Bl. 59, Lot 21                                     Appl.#6-478

Front yard                                           RA zone

The Pages requested the setback variance to erect a swing set near the Cobb Road side of the house.  They consider this to be their back yard because they are between two streets, so it is technically a second front yard.  An accessory structure cannot be placed in a front yard.  Jim Moody expressed concern that the swing set would be too close to the street and visible to the neighbors, especially those whose houses front on Cobb.  Page said that it would be 40 feet from the street.  Page said that the phone and power lines are located on the easterly side and are only approximately one story high.  Bolo thought the proposed swing set location was too far away from the house, and should be within the setback, closer to the rear of the house, especially since the neighbors’ front yards face Cobb.  Board members recommended that it be placed at least 60 feet from the road, and outside the 25’ side setbacks.  Sheasby recommended that it be closer to the house.  Richter thought it is reasonable to have it on the Cobb Road side and 70 feet from the road would be acceptable.  Motion by Chris Sullivan, seconded by David Kane approved by 7-0 roll call vote.

 

MARK & LORRAINE LALIN          117 Midvale Road

Bl. 129.02, Lot 4                                Appl. #06-481

Front yard                                           RA zone

Architect Larry Korinda described the request for a front yard variance along Roger Road, the access to Haswell Park.  They would also like to extend the stone wall along Roger Road.  Other planned modifications would not require variances.  Korinda described the request to extend the retaining wall along Roger Road.  Attorney Sullivan noted that retaining walls were allowed within the setbacks.  After questions about the location of the wall, whether it was within the Borough right-of-way and whether trees would be removed, it was suggested that the issue be deferred to the Shade Tree Commission.  Attorney Sullivan said we cannot approve walls within the right-of-way.  If it is not a retaining wall, a variance would be required.  There was no public comment.

Jim Moody moved that the motion be approved with conditions that the new wall is not in the right of way and tree questions be deferred to the Shade Tree Commission.  Closer to Midvale, the wall  could be 2 ½ feet and increase to (not exceed) 3 feet, Chris Sullivan seconded the motion, approved by 7-0 roll call vote. 

 

PETER KASHULINES                      294 Morris Ave.

Bl. 104 Lot 9                                      Appl.#06-482

ILC & side                                         RA zone

Architect Marjorie Roller described the request to extend the existing deck and add a set of stairs to a natural stone area.  This would be a more natural transition and reduce the number of stairs needed if they were located in the rear.  The coverage will not be increased because they will remove a dry laid brick patio in the front of the house.  The concrete pad would require the side yard variance for 10 feet, an existing nonconformity.  Roller showed the existing survey (Exhibit A1, Zimmerlee survey from 2/2006).  There were no comments from the public or the Board.  The motion to approve was made by Bob Sheasby, seconded by Peter Bolo and carried by 7-0 roll call.

 

Other Matters:

Attorney Sullivan noted that By-Laws had not been located and he offered to prepare a draft.  Arthur Max suggested that we add a clause to any approval that the applicant agrees to be subject to the ZBA jurisdiction if they want to make additional changes within one year.  Sheasby agreed but did not want to include a time frame.  Michael Sullivan said he would look at the suggestion more carefully.  Regarding the March 24 memo from Gary Webb to Jill Gotthelf, Council will discuss the height ordinance at their April 24 meeting.  Jim Moody suggested that there be language to exempt properties with an elevation change of less than a certain amount. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.                                            

Respectfully submitted,

           

                         

 

                                                                                                Marge Jackson, Secretary