MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

January 4, 2007

 

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

Also Present:  Attorney Michael Sullivan

Council Liaison – none

 

Chris Sullivan made the motion, seconded by Chris Richter and carried by 7-0 roll call vote to elect Jill Gotthelf as Chair.  Jim Moody made the motion, seconded by David Kane and carried by 7-0 roll call vote to elect Chris Richter as Vice-Chair.  David Kane made the motion, seconded by Arthur Max, to approve the following:  Michael Sullivan, of the firm Stickel, Koenig and Sullivan, was appointed Counsel for the Board.  Margaret Jackson was appointed Administrative Officer/Secretary.  The Citizen and the Daily Record were designated as papers of notice for the Board.  The following dates were approved for regular meetings of the Board for 2007:          

            February 1       June 7              October 4

            March  1          July 5               November 1

            April 5              August 2           December 6

            May 3              September 6     January 3, 2008

The above were approved by 7-0 roll call vote.

 

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

 

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:      

BOB & JENNIFER VOLOSIN           Appl. #06-497

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

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS:  All applicants were sworn in by Chair Gotthelf. 

Carried from November 2:

DAVID WINTERS                              11 Point View Place

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

FAR, ILC, front & shoreline                 RA zone

Attorney Maryann Brennan introduced the application.  They will begin fresh and not rely on previous testimony.  The lot size on the home is irregular, adjoining lots are also unusually shaped.  The property size is 19,427 square feet.  The proposal is a renovation and Brennan admits that the numbers are unusually high.  The existing home is built on a slab and has no basement.  It is not visible from any area except from the street.  Brennan reviewed the variances requested.  Last year’s application was designed by a different architect.  They have reviewed that material and renewed the application.

Applicant David Winters thanked the Board for their guidance; he has lived in Mountain Lakes since the early nineties.  He noted that he started his business in Mountain Lakes and has created jobs here.

Architect Richard Nelson presented the plan dated 9/20/06, Exhibit A1, rendering of the front elevation of the one story addition.  He noted that most of the addition is hidden behind the roofline.  Nelson reviewed the square footage addition and calculations.  He testified that the structural truss area has been included in the calculations but will be less than 5 feet high and is not required to be included because it could not be used as living space.  Exhibit A was a photograph of the construction completed to show the quality of work Winters has contracted.  A3 was a photograph of the cathedral area.  A4, drawing E1 showing the floor plan of the existing house.  Exhibit A5 (P1A) was presented.  Arthur Max asked if this is relevant, we should not be considering what was previously proposed.  Board members agreed.

The proposed floor plan shows the removal of one bedroom on the first floor to increase the kitchen and living space.  The proposed plan will have a total of three bedrooms with the addition of a powder room on the first floor.  The height of the proposed house is approximately 30 feet at the highest point of the roofline.  The depth is 35’ 3”, width 94.8’.  Exhibit A6 was a survey dated 12-05-06, A7 a colored version of the survey.  Since the two adjacent lots are flag lots, the Zoning Officer said they should use 40 feet as the front yard setback requirement.  The existing house is 38.5’ from the front line.

The shoreline nonconformity is existing, the addition will not exacerbate this condition.  The improved lot coverage is 33.9%; a portion of the driveway could be removed, reducing the coverage slightly.

Nelson said that Dan Hagberg considers the second story space as an attic.  Nelson testified that a builder would recommend destruction of the perimeter walls.  A8 was a design of a floor area conforming house, with the proposal outlined in red to demonstrate that a new, conforming  home could look much larger that this proposal.  When asked if a basement could be dug for this house, Nelson said he could not predict, it depends on the soil.  Exhibits A9,10, & 11 were photographs of neighboring homes.  Nelson testified that this proposal would still be visually smaller than four of the five houses in the neighborhood.  Nelson said that he believes floor area was intended to be a volume control and designed to preserve the Hapgood style with the third floor.  A new house could be designed with a full walkout basement and third floor space that would not be included in floor area.  Therefore, on a new home, the floor area does not always correspond to the appearance of volume.  Nelson said he could redesign the rooflines to be less steep.

Jim Moody asked how much more the driveway could be reduced compared with the driveway shown in the alternate proposal for the new house.  Chris Richter estimated that they could shave off approximately 800 square feet.  Nelson estimated that he could get to 31% ILC if the driveway and turnaround area were reduced.  Arthur Max countered that the primary problem with the application is the FAR.  Jill Gotthelf asked, since you are working with a clean slate between the garage and the right portion of the house, couldn’t you reduce the floor area?  Nelson said they could reduce that area so the front variance wouldn’t be required but it would reduce the floor area only 38 square feet.  Nelson pointed out that a new home could have the first floor elevated six feet, requiring only 3 or 4 feet excavation for the basement.  At this point, the first floor is directly at grade level.

From the audience, Steve Shaw, who lives directly across the street from this property, said he supports the application.  He described the neighborhood, noting that there have been positive changes; this would be the last property to be renovated.  He believes the proposed improvements would be beneficial to the aesthetics of the neighborhood.  The front yard issue exists for all the homes because they are on a cul-de-sac.  He is pleased to see that the height is being kept at 30 feet.  Shaw had reviewed the application and he doesn’t believe the mass of the proposal would be a problem.  He doesn’t think that the volume of the proposal is excessive.  This would fit in with the other homes in the neighborhood.  The mitigating factors on this application are the slab construction and the irregular lot.

From the audience:  Fred Kantor, 81 Hanover Road, said he does not see a copy of the application for the public to review.  He suggested that the application be available for the public.  He suggested that if you buy a house, you should stay within the bulk requirement rules.   

Board comments:  Chris Richter – the numbers are high but the ordinance was crafted to encourage renovation rather than tear-downs.  He noted that although there are irregularities, this lot is 200 feet wide but there is no back yard; the backyard is the lake.  We should consider whether the FAR is balanced on the lot.  I don’t have an issue with the FAR because the 200 foot front is wider than most lots in the Borough and gives the appearance of a much larger lot. 

Moody – no problem with the shoreline or front setbacks.  We have given consideration to narrow lots on the lake.  I would vote for approval and would ask for ILC reduction to 31%.  Sheasby – is concerned that the variance would be in perpetuity for any other owner.  He was corrected that a variance applies only to the proposal approved.  He prefers the conservative rather than the permissive approach.  Rusak – has a problem with the floor area, would approve the ILC if the FAR were reduced by pushing back the center portion.  Max – since you had the opportunity to design almost anything you want, he would not approve this FAR.  Kane – looking at it from a construction perspective, since the core area is being removed, he believes there are alternatives to achieve a lower FAR.  Bolo – the lakes are our most valuable asset; he is opposed to any construction within 25’ of the lake.  He can’t justify the FAR or lakefront setback.  Sullivan – perception is important, this proposal is good and I will vote for it.  Gotthelf – appreciates the detail but she has an issue with the FAR.  Although the bedrooms and bathrooms are the same, to increase the floor area to 5000 square feet indicates that there is a lot of extra space.  She believes the house would clearly look oversized.

Attorney Brennan – the client would like to work with the Board and come back next month to the February 1 meeting; she gave the Board an extension of time to act.  Jim Moody made the motion to carry the application, seconded by Chris Sullivan and approved by voice vote.

 

New application:

ANDREW & VIVIEN GREENBERG  65 Lake Drive

            Bl. 101, Lot 21                         Appl. #06-495

            FAR                                                     RA zone    

Architect Joan Nix and owner Andrew Greenberg introduced the application.  The drawings on the easel were enlargements of the application.  Exhibits A1 & A2 were five photos of the house.  A previous application was denied in August; this is a new application.  The house is on the lake side of Lake Drive.  The Greenbergs currently use the screened porch for eating during warm weather.  The house is at 26.6% FAR so any addition would exacerbate this.  The proposal is to enclose the porch with glass panels and eliminate the projecting space from the family room. 

The existing FAR of 20.06% would increase to 20.39 with this proposal.  The improved lot coverage would be reduced from 27.26 to 26.06% which slightly exceeds the 25% allowed.  Nix feels that removal of that portion of the family room will improve the appearance of the house.  It would also improve the site lines of the adjacent properties and  improve the drainage.  They plan to use removable glass panels to enclose the porch that could be opened when the weather permits.  Nix believes that the perceived volume of the house would be reduced with this proposal even though the FAR will increase slightly.

Greenberg testified that some decking would be added where the family room is reduced but it would not be covered.

There were no comments from the public.  Jill Gotthelf said the FAR increase is minimal and ILC reduction is welcome.  Jim Moody moved to grant the variances as submitted, seconded by Chris Sullivan and carried by 7-0 roll call vote.

 

 

Other Matters / Public Comment:

Jim Moody moved to adopt the 2006 Annual Report with the date correction on page 1 and clarification of the total number of applications on page 3, seconded by Chris Richter and approved by voice vote.

 

Public Session:  Fred Kantor asked for an extension of the five minute limitation.  He came here tonight to speak in the public session.  He believes we should do anything we can do to provide information.  If he had access to the applications at this meeting, he would have been better informed.  He would be willing to pay for duplication of the applications if the Borough can not afford it.  If it is helpful to the public interest, that should be done.  The draft minutes were not available on the table for the public.

Kantor requested that the Board remove Mr. Richter from the Board.  He also suggested that the Board remove Attorney Sullivan.

Gotthelf asked that the minutes be placed on the table, noted as draft.

Jim Moody made the motion, seconded by Chris Sullivan, to provide 2 to 6 copies.  Chris Richter disagreed, noting that no one else has ever made the request. The motion was approved by 5-2 roll call vote.

Regarding the request for copies of the application, Jill Gotthelf had issues with the plans being reproduced.  Applications are available for viewing prior to the meeting in the Borough office; it is copyrighted and should not be copied.  Jim Moody moved to have one copy of the application available to the public, in a folder stating “Do not remove.”  Peter Bolo seconded the motion, carried by 6-1 roll call.

 

Former Mayor Steve Shaw, 4 Point View Place, thanked the Board members for their service to the community.

    

The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

           

           

             

 

                                                                                                Marge Jackson, Secretary