MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

November 2, 2006

Peter Bolo moved to appoint Chris Sullivan as temporary chairman for this meeting; Bob Sheasby seconded the motion, carried by 6-0 roll call vote.

Acting Chair Chris Sullivan called the meeting to order and read the Open Public Meeting Advertisement: 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: Bolo, Kane, Sheasby, Sullivan, Rusak, Max

Absent: Gotthelf, Richter, Moody

Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan

Council Liaison – none

REVIEW OF MINUTES: The minutes of the October 11 meeting were approved by voice vote.

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:

GARY & ANDREA MCLAUGHLIN Appl. #06-500

David Kane made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Pat Rusak and carried by 3 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.

JASON & GALE ALVAREZ Appl. #06-499

Peter Bolo made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval with the revision to add condition 4 stating, “The playhouse and slab shall be removed.” The motion was seconded by David Kane and carried by 5 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: All applicants were sworn in by Acting Chair Sullivan.

Carried from October 11:

BOB & JENNIFER VOLOSIN 77 Cobb Road

Bl. 57, Lot 12 Appl. #06-497

Front, Bldg. Env., Soil Moving RA/RAA zone

Project Engineer Marc Walker testified that he did the survey work and the revised plan dated 10/20/06. Walker said they would give complete testimony, not relying on previous testimony, so all Board members are eligible to vote. They are proposing a new structure to be located completely within the RA zone so those requirements would apply to the application.

The application seeks front setback and building envelope variances and a soil moving permit. The building envelope variance is required because the 85’ x 50’ requirement cannot be met; the 75 x 75 proposed envelope is larger in area than 85 x 50. The slopes greater than 15% are not allowed to be within the building envelope. If you subtract the area with slopes, you still have an area larger than 85 x 50.

Regarding the front yard, the original home had a 50 foot setback. The setback exception requires 85.1 feet. The proposed house is 75’, so a 10.1’ variance is sought. This setback would match the front face of the original house built in approximately 1910. This house is in the same location as the original but the structure would be lower and narrower. The elevation at the rear is 530, at the street it is 500. If the house were pushed back, there would be no yard in the rear and it would require substantial retaining walls. Walker noted that the retaining walls outside the building envelope would be modified to be no higher than 3 feet to comply with the ordinance currently before Council. This house will be 29.4 feet from the first floor to the peak of the roof, meeting the 35 foot height requirement.

Referring to the soil moving permit, there will be a grade cut of 846 cubic yards, foundation excavation 678 cy, grading fill 290 cy; so total soil removal of approximately 1234 yards will require approximately 90 truckloads.

Approval would be conditioned upon review by the Borough Engineer, including truck routes.

Peter Bolo asked about the width and setback of the proposal versus the previous house. Walker – the primary wall of the proposal is closer to the street by 1½ feet. The covered porch is 3½’ closer. We had considered side-loading the garage but this plan makes more sense because of the elevation and the neighboring house location. This house would be 16 feet more narrow than the previous house.

Max asked why you couldn’t adhere to the building envelope required by ordinance. Walker – the front yard is a function of the structures to either side. The houses on either side are set back 75’ and 90’. There is no opportunity to purchase additional property. With the exception of the front setback, we are complying with the building envelope. If we were to move the house back we would get into steep slopes issues. Walker said the proposed steps comply with the ordinance. We need those steps to get from the garage to the porch.

Owner Robert Volosin was sworn in. He said that they have young children and elderly parents who visit frequently. He believes this plan is a safer condition than to have one set of eight steps.

Arthur Max asked, since they began with a clean slate, couldn’t they have planned a house that complied? Mike Sullivan said the building envelope is an existing condition. Walker – the building envelope is a hardship; all the lots that surround us are zoned RA. This plan is consistent with the neighborhood. Max asked about the drainage. Walker said there are underdrains planned for the rear of the lot. We also have two drywells proposed to capture roof runoff; they will flow into sewer drains in the street. We have increased coverage by 42 square feet but we have provided drainage as though this lot had been vacant.

Architect Seth Leeb had previously been accepted as an expert. Leeb said that they changed the orientation of the house by putting the garages on the left side, therefore any excess drain water would not flow to the neighbors across the street.

There were no comments from the public.

Board comments: Rusak – concerned that no interior plans were provided. Attorney Sullivan noted that the only bulk variance requested is the frontyard setback and that is required because of one neighboring house. All the other dimensions comply with the ordinance. The setback request is measured to the steps and the bulk of the house seems to be set back.

Sheasby – wonders whether the front setback is justified; he is troubled that the front encroaches. He doesn’t think this is consistent with the Master Plan. Walker – our plan was driven by the Board’s direction to comply with the zone.

Bolo – is comfortable with the building envelope and the front variance. This plan with the narrower house will be consistent with the scale of the property.

Kane – could the retaining walls be moved back toward the property line approximately eight feet? Walker – it is feasible but the grade elevation increases. Kane said he appreciates the reduction in size of the retaining walls, the dry wells, etc. Walker reiterated that the proposed house is smaller than and not as tall as the previous structure. Retaining walls located in the setbacks would not exceed three feet; truck routes and performance bond should be approved by the engineer. Walker said the applicant proposes that the front setback be 78.5, moved back an additional 3½ feet.

Peter Bolo moved to approve the application with the conditions stated, seconded by David Kane and carried by 6-0 roll call vote.

Carried to January 4:

DAVID WINTERS 11 Point View Place

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

FAR, ILC, front & shoreline RA zone

David Kane made the motion to approve the applicant’s request to carry the application to January 4, Peter Bolo seconded the motion carried by voice vote.

Other Matters / Public Comment:

Jackie Burkett, 78 Cobb Road directly across the street from the Volosin house, complimented the Board; she has watched this process and is happy with the attention the Board has paid to that application.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Marge Jackson, Secretary