MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

May 4, 2006

 

Chair Jill Gotthelf 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:  Gotthelf, Richter, Kane, Sheasby, Bolo, Sullivan, Rusak, Max

Absent:  Moody                       Also Present:  Attorney Michael Sullivan

 

ADOPTION OF BY-LAWS

David Kane made the motion to approve the By-Laws drafted by Attorney Sullivan and dated May 4; motion seconded by Chris Sullivan and approved by unanimous voice vote.

 

REVIEW OF MINUTES:  The minutes of the April 6 meeting were approved by voice vote. 

 

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:      

ELISE COLLINS                               Appl. #06-474

David Kane made the motion to approve the resolution of approval, seconded by Arthur Max and carried by 6-0 roll call of eligible voters.

 

THOMAS & NICOLE RENNA        Appl. #06-475

Bob Sheasby made the motion to approve the resolution of approval, seconded by Peter Bolo and carried by 5-0 roll call of eligible voters.

                                                               

ETHAN & SARINA GRODOFSKY Appl. #06-477

Peter Bolo made the motion to approve the resolution of approval, seconded by Chris Richter and carried by 6-0 roll call of eligible voters.

                                                               

TARA & LARRY PAGE                    Appl. #06-478

Peter Bolo made the motion to approve the resolution of approval, seconded by David Kane and carried by 6-0 roll call of eligible voters.

                                                               

MARK & LORRAINE LALIN          Appl. #06-481

Chris Sullivan made the motion to approve the resolution of approval, seconded by Pat Rusak and carried by 6-0 roll call of eligible voters.

                                                               

PETER KASHULINES                      Appl. #06-482

Peter Bolo made the motion to approve the resolution of approval, seconded by Chris Sullivan and carried by 6-0 roll call of eligible voters.

                                                               

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Chair Jill Gotthelf 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.  All applicants were sworn in by the Chair.  Application material is required to be on record 10 days prior to the hearing. 

               

                                               

     ERIC BECHT                                                 251 Boulevard

Bl. 55, Lot 44                                       Appl. #06-480

FAR, ILC, front, side & height RAA zone

Attorney Maryanne Brennan described this application as technical; she preferred to commence as quickly as possible.  Becht will describe the application and will defer to his architect.  The house was constructed on a substandard lot at a time when (Brennan said) there were no restrictions on FAR or ILC.   Becht, a licensed engineer and architect, was offered as a technical expert and testified:  We’ve lived here with our children for 18 years and would like to renovate the house.  We would like to improve a high and ugly elevation, create an entry, simplify the multiple rooflines, remove the old deteriorating stairs in the front of the house and find a way to accommodate the four drivers in the family.  Now, we have to back down the driveway, creating a safety hazard.  We’d like to accommodate all this and maintain a four bedroom house.  After 18 years, we have gained an appreciation for the Hapgood style and would like to replicate it.  The architect has come up with a design for a difficult structure and a difficult site.  Exhibit A1 was a board of 5 photographs of the current house, taken within the last week.

Architect Peter Dorne gave an overview of other projects he has created in Mtn. Lakes.  He got a degree in engineering, became a builder and then went to graduate school for a degree in architecture.  His partner, Walter Pfeifer, worked with Jim Zorlas and also on the Brissenden house.  He noted that he has been hired because his projects “look like they’ve been here forever.”  This project was a challenge because of the elevation and there was no sense of an entry.

The foundation plan was marked as Exhibit A2, showing a stairway and parking court.  A3 was a rendering of the proposed elevation, showing the three-car garage underground.  The additions planned to the house are the underground garage, the front porch and entry and a fireplace in the rear.  A4, rear elevation, introduced more stone in the rear.  A5 showed the floor plan for the first floor.  A6, 2nd floor plan, showed the area above the entranceway with an office for Eric.  The area to the left was added on this level, plus an outside porch.  A7, attic plan, showed a cathedral ceiling over the master bedroom plus an additional bedroom.  A8 showed existing and proposed elevations on the front and right sides.  Dorne referred back to A2 to show that the stone and masonry would be appropriate using shingles, stone and stucco to create a softer look that would blend in with the site.  The rear addition would be 6’ by 15’.  The ridgeline of the roof has been lowered.  The landscaping has been designed to sculpture the land.  The turnaround area has been lowered and flattened to accommodate more cars.  A9 was the landscape plan; we are not removing any trees, not changing any grade that would disturb the trees; the topography of the upper courtyard area would be changed to create a nice lawn area.

Eric Becht was introduced as the engineer of the property; he testified that they strived to reduce the ILC, decreasing the landing area by adding the third garage and reducing the width of the driveway.  The stairs will be eliminated and converted to a landscaped area.  The rear lawn elevation has been reduced to be more in harmony with the neighbors.  The driveway would be graded to block the view of the garages.  Chris Richter asked Becht if he had included the walls in his ILC coverage.  Becht – no, I did not.

Richter noted that wall heights keep increasing and are a safety concern.  Anything over 30” in drop needs a rail within 36”.  That would require variance relief.  Dorne said he is a construction official; Richter noted that there were a few walls on the plan that were higher than 30”.  A five foot wall should have protection.  Richter also noted the fencing above the garage that encroaches into the sideyard setback; he asked if there had been any consideration to putting the third garage in another location that would not encroach into the 25 foot side setback.  Becht – there was no other viable location.  Bolo expressed concern that the wall of stone would look like a fortress, especially with the third garage.  Gotthelf agreed that her most significant objection was with the sideyard intrusion.  Max asked about the FAR calculation, noting that the third floor, if included would be 25%.  Becht testified that every space over 5 feet of headroom was included in floor area.

Public comment:  Tom Treweeke, across the street at 240 Boulevard, considers this a major improvement and concurred that backing out onto the Boulevard is very dangerous, so he supports the extra garage. 

Richter – considering the tiered walls in the front yard, either we have a fencing issue or we have to break up the walls.  Gotthelf suggested a maximum height of each wall.  Richter suggested a setback of the retaining wall to the north side, fearing that they would intrude into the neighbors’ property.  Dorne said they would be very careful in the installation.  Gotthelf asked if the applicant would amend the application.  Becht said they would remove the third garage but would still need a retaining wall; he might need to adjust the driveway if the garage were eliminated.  The Board wanted to see revised calculations with the walls included in the ILC.  The application was carried to the June 1 meeting.  Attorney Brennan asked for a limitation on the height of the walls with agreement that the ILC will not exceed a certain number.  The sideyard variance request would be eliminated.  Kane preferred that the numbers be provided prior to approval.  Bolo agreed.  Richter was comfortable with the exchange of the garage with the walls.  Board members agreed that they want to see the revised application 10 days prior to approval.  All walls will be included in ILC calculations, the sideyard request would be eliminated.  David Kane asked for detail if anything else in the design changes.  Peter Bolo made the motion to carry the application to June 1, seconded by Chris Sullivan.  Board members did not indicate they would be absent from that meeting.

 

DAVID WINTERS                              11 Point View Place

Bl. 100.02, Lot 86                                Appl. #06-483

FAR, ILC, front & shoreline                 RA zone

Attorney Maryanne Brennan introduced the application:  this requires variances for floor area, coverage, front and shoreline.  Brennan pointed out the site plan for the property on Point View Place.  This property is invisible from Morris Avenue, is very private and remote.  The existing structure on a slab was a ranch with no basement.  Winters has constructed an addition on the right side of the house.  He would like to expand the house by adding a second story on the left side.  There will be no third floor or attic.  The ILC will be increased only by filling in the space in the front left of the house.  Winters preferred to retain the boathouse along the shoreline and he testified that he moved to Mountain Lakes in 1993 and purchased this property in 1998.  He has renovated half the house and would like to complete the modernization, adding an elevator in case he needs to care for his parents.  This addition would not impede any neighbors’ view.

Brennan marked the elevation, dated 12/05/05 as Exhibit A1, a larger version of the proposed elevation.

Sheet A103 was entered as Exhibit A2; A102 was Exhibit A3, the floor plan of the existing house.

A4 showed side elevations.  Richter asked whether the loft area with a cathedral ceiling was included in the floor area calculation.  Brennan noted that the architect could not be here for this hearing.  Winters is asking for feedback as to whether this is a feasible plan..  Richter pointed out that, even though this is currently planned as a three bedroom house, it could be converted to a six bedroom house in the future, there is enough space.  Rusak – is bothered by the high floor area and the flat front façade.  Kane – you could sell this tomorrow; I think the scale could be reduced.  Richter – an attractive addition would benefit the house and the area, but there is too much mass, the numbers are too high.  You could maintain 25% coverage if you reduce the pavers in the garage area.  Board members agreed.  Bolo – I think you are maxed out on the property now but would prefer minor additions.  I would not approve this much floor area increase.  Sullivan – you have done a nice job but you need to scale back any addition.  Gotthelf – the coverage could be reduced; she advocated reducing mass at the ends and keeping the mass in the center, which would reduce the overall mass appearance of the house.

From the public – Steve Shaw, 4 Point View Place, supported the application, noting that this street has gone through a positive transformation.  Most of the improvements needed variances.  This house is on a slab, probably only 4 inches off the ground, so that reduces the mass.

The  motion to carry the application to June 1 was made by Chris Sullivan and seconded by Bob Sheasby.

 

SILVER OAK LLC                             5 Lakewood Dr.

Bl. 8, Lot 7                                           Appl. #06-484

FAR, ILC & front                                R1 zone

Gary Goldsmith and Kevin Smith, principals in Silver Oak, were accompanied by Attorney John Wyciskala, of Stern & Kilkullen in Roseland.  The property is approximately ¼ acre, presently with a single story ranch style home.  They propose adding a second story with no changes to the footprint.  The roof would be removed and first floor walls would remain.  The front yard setback at 29.32’ is a preexisting nonconformity; the setback exception requires 39.3’.  Lot coverage is also nonconforming at 28.78%.  Floor area will increase to 20.62%, where 20% is allowed in the RA zone. 

Architect Marjorie Roller testified: the applicant would like to add three bedrooms on the second floor.  It is essentially a one bedroom house now.  The front overhang will be supported by brackets; there will be no columns to exacerbate the front setback.  The owners agreed to remove the gazebo (roofed lattice enclosure), reducing ILC from 28.7 to 28.1%.

Goldsmith testified that there is very little turning room into the garage located under the house in the rear.  He believes that is why the extra paved area was added to the left of the house, to accommodate a second car.  We could remove the gazebo and some of the patio to reduce coverage and add an a/c pad.  Goldsmith amended the ILC request to 27.85%.  Architect Roller introduced Exhibit A1, photographs of the existing house, to show that the deep overhangs will be reduced to three feet.  In response to Richter’s suggestion that a garage be added to the front, it was noted that the combined side setbacks cannot exceed 30 feet in the R1 zone.  Gotthelf asked whether, when the second story is added, the rear yard would have three stories exposed.  Roller said the average grade would be 543, the finished grade 548.  The basement ceilings are low.  The Board asked what could be done to reduce the floor area.  Roller said they would need to calculate wall-to-wall, even if they had dormers.  In response to Board suggestions that they eliminate the extra parking space, Goldsmith said that the sloped driveway is a hardship.

From the audience, Mrs. Emerick, a 37 hear resident at 10 Lakewood Drive, questioned the height of the house from ground level to the ridgepole.  Roller said that it is 27 feet.  Emerick also asked Goldsmith if it would be sold as a residence or a business.  Goldsmith:  only as a residence.  Emerick was concerned that a room would be added on the top story, creating four floors.  The motion to approve with conditions that they remove some of the patio and the gazebo, add a/c pads, and submit revised ILC calculations was made by Peter Bolo, seconded by Chris Sullivan and carried by roll call vote.

                                                                                                                                               

Other Matters / Public Comment:  Attorney Sullivan asked about the July 6 Board meeting; he can not attend, neither can Kane, Gotthelf or Rusak.  It will be discussed again in June.

Three members are needed for the Joint Ordinance Committee:  Richter, Kane and Max volunteered.

Chris Richter noted that the Borough would handle some grade changes administratively, eliminating the need for a topographic survey on each application.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.                                            

Respectfully submitted,

           

                         

 

 

                                                                                                Marge Jackson, Secretary