MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

           July 5, 2007

 

Acting Chair Chris Richter 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:  Richter, Bolo, Moody, Sheasby (arr. 7:35), C. Sullivan, Rusak, Max  

Absent:  Kane, Gotthelf

Also Present:  Attorney Michael Sullivan                                   Council Liaison – R. Urankar 8:30

 

REVIEW OF MINUTES:  The minutes of the June 7 meeting were amended and approved by voice vote.

 

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:      

THOMAS & CHRISTINA PIROLO  Appl. #07-507

Jim Moody made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Peter Bolo and carried by 5 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.

 

                        RANDY BENDER                              Appl.#07-510

Attorney Sullivan reviewed the condition regarding the shed.  The condition was not discussed during the hearing but was added during the approval process.  The applicant and her architect did not understand that they would have to comply with a 25 foot setback, requiring the shed to be moved adjacent to the house.  If it were moved to a conforming location, it would be more visible to the neighbor on the left.  Peter Bolo said that the variance approvals were given with much consideration to the requests.  Moody pointed out that because of the terraced levels of the property, it is hard to move a lawn mower to the grassed area from the garage.  A roll call of the Board allowed the applicant to provide more testimony.  Richter moved to reopen the hearing, seconded by Moody; Bolo opposed.  Architect Tom Chavette and applicant Randy Bender introduced Exhibit A1, four photos of the house and property taken from the lake to demonstrate that the shed is not visible from the lake; only a portion of the roof is visible from the dock.  Ms. Bender would like to keep it in this location because it is hidden by vegetation.  If it were moved to conformity it would be more visible from the lake and from her neighbor’s property.  Exhibit A2 was a plot plan with a possible alternate location.

Chris Richter  made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval to conform with the lake setback (25 feet) and retain the existing 2 ½ foot sideyard setback, seconded by Peter Bolo and carried by 4 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.  The applicant retained the exhibits

 

TODD & KIM TERHUNE                  Appl.#07-513

Jim Moody made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Peter Bolo and carried by 5 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.

 

                            BRADLEY & SYLVIA RICKERT      Appl.#07-514

Peter Bolo made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Jim Moody and carried by 5 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.

 

MARK & PIA ABATE                        Appl.#07-515

Peter Bolo made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Chris Richter and carried by 5 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.

 

MATT & JOAN CHAVEZ                  Appl. #07-516

Jim Moody made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Arthur Max and carried by 5 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.

                       

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

Carried from June 7:

   JEFFREY & KELLY AROESTY        23 Fernwood Pl.

   Bl.101 Lot 85                                       Appl.#07-511

   FAR, ILC, front, 2 sides, slope RA zone

Jeffrey Aroesty was accompanied by Architect Seth Leeb, who testified that they are no longer seeking ILC or FAR variances.  Attorney Sullivan reviewed the revised plans by Dykstra-Walker and Leeb.  Leeb said they listened to the Board’s comments and pushed the house back, increasing the setbacks of the front and sides.  We’ve reduced the front porch and pushed it back to 22.9’; the bulk of the house will be 28’ from the property line.  We have turned the house so the side setbacks are increased to 16’ and 15.4’.  By eliminating the front parking space, we do not need the ILC variance.  We have also pulled up the grade in the rear approximately 2 to 3 feet and added a retaining wall that is a maximum of three feet high and fades to ground level.  We also followed your suggestion to eliminate the screened porch on the third floor, replacing it with a small covered porch and adding flares to the roof to bring the height down.  Leeb showed a sketch, Exhibit A1 to show that the chimney would not be visible from the yard.  A group of photos, sheets A2 & A3, were taken from the lake to show that the mature trees will hide the house from the lake view.  Exhibit A4 was another set of photos to show that the back of other lake houses appear large and flat from the lake.  All the photos were taken by Aroesty on July 3 and accurately depict the properties.  Jim Moody noted that the photos were taken of what could be the largest houses on the lake.  Leeb said they were trying to show visual bulk and did not photograph houses on corresponding property sizes.  Exhibit A5 was a color overlay to show how each level of the house steps back from the lake.  The requested driveway slope is the same as that on the adjacent property to eliminate the requirement for a retaining wall. 

 

There was no public comment.  Board comments:  Jim Moody – in view of the pie-shape of the property, you can’t eliminate the sideyard variances; if you increase the front setback you impede the neighbors’ view of the lake.  Sheasby – moving the house mitigates some of the problems; he approves the smaller porch to minimize the bulk.  Regarding rear elevation, he discounts the other structures because we don’t know how they evolved.  Sheasby – not in favor of making significant grade changes, he’d prefer a more gradual slope.  Leeb said there are ordinances limiting the grade changes.  We increased the grade at the recommendation of the Board.  Leeb said that part of the reason for the third floor porch roof is to prevent water from backing into the house.  Rusak – although she doesn’t have a vote, she opposes the size of the house on this piece of property.  Chris Sullivan – if eligible, he would vote for it; he compared it to the initial plan and said they have done a good job meeting the Board concerns.  Bolo agreed; you have addressed many of our concerns and I favor approval.  Max – the overall height measured from the lake is approximately 48’ considering the slope and height of the house.  Has there been any plan to mitigate the noise?  Leeb – we have moved the a/c condensers and will install shrubbery to buffer the noise.  Richter asked that the condensers be moved to conformity; Leeb said the mechanical engineer recommended the proposed location.  Richter said the air handlers can be in the attic.  Leeb said they could make them comply within the setback.  Max also was concerned with the slope of the driveway.  Richter said 16% within a limited distance is not unusual.  Richter agreed with Bolo; you are trying to promote the land use concepts; you could build a house without variances, but the request to push the house forward promotes the open space and views of the neighbors.  This is a C2 variance; he does not consider it a hardship. Peter Bolo made the motion to approve with the condition that a/c units conform, seconded by Jim Moody, carried by 3-2 roll call (Sheasby & Max denied.)  The applicant retained the exhibits.

 

New applications:

COMMUNITY CHURCH                  48 Briarcliff Rd.

Bl. 82, Lot 7                                         Appl. #07-512

Front                                                    RA zone

Jim Moody stepped down.  Attorney Michael Lightner represented the Community Church.  Architect Marjorie Roller explained that the Church will be undergoing a major renovation and needs a handicap ramp to access the sanctuary space.  Exhibit A1 was a photograph of the proposed location of the ramp.  She testified that ADA guidelines have been followed.  A frontyard setback variance is required because the ramp and associated rail will begin 34’ from Barton Road.  There were no Board or public  questions.  C. Sullivan moved for approval, second by A. Max and carried by 6-0 roll call vote.

 

VALERIO FERRARI                          401 Morris Ave.

Bl. 101, Lot 97                         Appl. #07-517

Front                                                    RA zone

Arthur Max stepped down.  Attorney Sullivan said this is an alteration within the nonconforming setback.  Ferrari said that the setback will not change.  There was no Board or public comment.  Jim Moody made the motion for approval, Chris Sullivan seconded, carried by 6-0 roll call vote.

Peter Bolo read from the ordinances regarding Board members who recuse themselves.  Mike Sullivan  said case law does not prevent recused members from commenting, but he recommends against it.

 

MARY-JO O’LEARY             79 Laurel Hill Rd.

Bl. 49, Lot 20                                       Appl.. #07-518

ILC, front                                             RAA zone

Architect Larry Korinda described the application proposal for a second floor bedroom wing.  The house at the corner of Laurel Hill and N. Briarcliff is known as Grigsby Station.  Korinda corrected existing and proposed ILC to 16.3%.  This second story FAR is less than 50% of the first floor.  A1 was a colored version of the plot plan.  A2, a series of photos showing the 4’6” stone wall with the plantings above the wall to show that the house is very well hidden.  The required front yard setback is 73.9.  The proposed front setback is 54’; the setback to the addition would be 65’ 9”.  Exhibit A3 was a colored floor plan.  They also propose to remove the front porch to expand the dining room.  Korinda pointed out that since the second floor is inset on all four sides, the appearance of mass is reduced.  Korinda speculated that this property was probably part of the neighboring house’s property at one time so many of the paths and walls are historic.  Board members asked if there were areas where coverage could be reduced.  Korinda said some of the gravel paths could be replaced with wood chips.  Other members disagreed that it was necessary.  No public comment.  A. Max made the motion to approve, seconded by B. Sheasby and carried by 7-0 roll call vote.

 

PAUL & PHYLLIS DEERING            8 Oak Lane

Bl. 81, Lot 2.01                                    Appl. #07-519

Front                                                    RA zone

The Deerings presented their proposal to add a covered porch.  They said their rear patio is not very private so they’d like to construct a covered porch and patio away from the neighbors.  This will be open, not screened, with four foot walls.  Peter Bolo said he cannot consider this a covered porch when it has partial walls, doors and windows.  It was determined that, even if it were enclosed, it would not exceed the floor area maximum of 17%.  The average setback of the two adjacent properties is 47.5’.  Bolo asked if they considered a plan with a smaller porch or one requiring less of a variance.  Deering said this plan is accessible from the kitchen and would continue the existing roof lines.  Board members asked if they had considered using space on the property that would not require a setback.  Deering said this is the only plan they prefer.  There continued to be comment and suggestions of locating the porch so it was not 20 feet from Oak Lane.  There was no public input.

Rusak said she would like to see it pushed back, it is too close to Oak.  She thinks it could be reworked.  Sheasby – the house has been expanded elsewhere but he believes that 80% of this new structure is outside the building envelope; he is strongly opposed.  Moody – you have to assume that you or a future owner will enclose this structure.  Bolo – we could grant a variance if it were compatible with the existing 24.4’ setback but not to increase the nonconformity; Sullivan agreed.  Richter would like to see alternatives, perhaps an offset gable would work.  He suggested that they look at alternatives and come back next month.  The Board voted to carry the application to the August 2 meeting.

 

SUSAN & JON RAGLAND               90 Hanover Rd.

Bl. 72, Lot 25                                       Appl. #07-520

FAR, front                                            RA zone

Jon Ragland described the area of the existing house and showed the elevation (Exhibit A1) of the proposed addition over a one story room and a two-car garage.  The frontyard variance is requested to construct a covered entryway at 59.6’ from Hanover Road.  A2 was a colored floor plan.  Board questioned floor area calculations, particularly the 32 feet over the garage and the third floor.  The  Board would like a determination from the zoning officer regarding the floor area plus the space over the garage.  They would also like to see floor plans and dimension elevations to determine the height from grade to ceiling plate and roof hip.  The application was carried to the 8/02 meeting.

 

Other Matters / Public Comment:  The public was reminded of the 5 minute limit to any individual’s comments.

Fred Kantor, 81 Hanover Road, said that when you adopted rules, you placed the public session at the end of the meeting.  No other body has their public session at the end.  He said that the public should be able to comment on the minutes.  He said Mr. Richter threatened him with arrest and that should have been reflected in the minutes.  He expects to be convicted and expects to be sentenced to jail.  Everyone else who appears speaks longer than five minutes.  It is discriminatory that I am limited and no one else is.  I think Mr. Richter should resign and Attorney Sullivan should be replaced.  I believe you are operating illegally again.  Your attorney and acting chair are acting illegally.  Mr. Kanter’s five minutes expired.

Olga Coleve, 25 Beechway, said she was here to speak of their concerns about the Ragland application.  Richter apologized for not asking for public comments.  Attorney Sullivan said the application was carried to August 2 and you will be able to comment on it at that time.

 

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

Respectfully submitted,

           

 

 

 

                                                                                                                        Marge Jackson, Secretary