MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
ZONING
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF
Chair Gotthelf called the meeting to order and announced: Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act by posting written notice of the time, date, location and agenda of the meeting on the bulletin board in the Borough Hall and by transmitting such notice by fax to The Citizen and The Daily Record and by filing same with the Borough Clerk on July 12, 2007 and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Gotthelf, Richter, Kane, Sheasby, Sullivan, Rusak, Max Absent: Moody, Bolo
Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan Council Liaison – none
REVIEW OF MINUTES: The minutes of the July 5 meeting were approved by voice vote.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
JEFFREY & KELLY AROESTY Appl. #07-511
Chris Sullivan made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Chris Richter and carried by 3 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.
Arthur Max made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Chris Sullivan and carried by 5 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.
VALERIO FERRARI Appl. #07-517
Chris Richter made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Pat Rusak and carried by 4 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.
MARY-JO O’LEARY Appl..#07-518
Chris Richter made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Bob Sheasby and carried by 5 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: All applicants and witnesses were sworn in by Chair Gotthelf.
Carried from
PAUL &
PHYLLIS DEERING
Bl. 81, Lot 2.01 Appl. #07-519
Front RA zone
The Deerings requested that the Board carry their application to the September 6 meeting; motion by Chris Richter, seconded by David Kane and approved by voice vote.
SUSAN & JON
RAGLAND 90
Bl. 72, Lot 25 Appl. #07-520
FAR, front RA zone
Chair Gotthelf informed the Raglands that they could not rely on testimony from last month if they wanted all sitting Board members to be eligible. Jon Ragland showed Exhibit A1, colored version of the front and side elevations, black & white elevations with dimensions, second level floor plans and the FAR sheet. Currently they have a cantilevered overhang at the front door; they propose adding a 12’ by 12’ front portico. Measuring the setbacks of the next two neighbors, the front setback exception is 65 feet; they are requesting a setback of 59.6 feet for the patio. Currently the house is set back 70.4’, the cantilevered overhang is 65.4’ from the property line. Sheasby asked, if this were approved, would they agree that it could not be enclosed? Ragland pointed out how the columns on the portico and the proposed garage would tie in. From the side, the garage roof line and dormers would match the construction of the existing house. The current plan shows an 8’ x 4’ section leading from the house to the area over the garage. The area over the garage would be a maximum of 313 square feet and is included in the FAR calculations. The existing FAR is 18.43%, request is 19.74%. Chris Richter asked for clarification of the numbers, verifying that there is no existing garage. The numbers presented are assuming a minimum height but they prefer a higher ceiling for the garage. The 313 square feet is the maximum area over the garage. The alternative would be to construct a flat roof over the garage to eliminate the 313 square feet. Ragland pointed out that the garage size is larger than usual so they can store two large vehicles plus a 22’ skull for the high school crew club. Sheasby asked if they had considered removing the area now used as a game room. Ragland – no because there is a large fireplace projecting five feet from the wall. Pat Rusak asked if they had considered a different driveway configuration so the entrance would not be so close to the corner.
Board comments: Richter – the 12 foot portico is very large, he doesn’t understand why it is so deep; someone else could use it for a driveway. He would prefer it to be smaller, a depth of eight feet would be plenty. The Raglands agreed that it could be 8’ deep so the frontyard setback request would be reduced to 63.6’. Chris Richter moved to approve the application with the condition that the front portico be reduced to 8 feet in depth, Chris Sullivan seconded, motion approved by 5-2 roll call vote (Kane, Gotthelf denied).
New applications:
WILLKE/POGORZELSKI 44 Lookout
Bl. 48, Lot 13 Appl. #07-521
ILC, front, side RAA zone
Architect Joan Nix accompanied Dana Pogorzelski. A board of 5 photos was marked as Exhibit A1; they were taken 4 days ago and accurately depict the site. The enlargement of the site plan was A2. The zone line between the RA and RAA zone was drawn on A2 in red. They would like to add a third bay to the two gar garage. To access the garage, they would add some driveway while removing other driveway area. They would also like to remove the flat roof and add a pitched roof to the porch, creating a sideyard setback variance on the west side of the house. They plan a small addition on the second floor and another for a mudroom between the house and the garage. They would also like to add railings on the roof. A few evergreens would need to be removed.
The lot straddles the RA and RAA zones, so the more strict
bulk variances would apply for this application. Because this is a
through lot between Laurel Hill and Lookout, the frontyard
exception rule puts the entire house out of the required building envelope.
The average of the adjacent fronts on Laurel Hill is 135 feet; the existing
setback is 66.9’ which would be the closest point of the new construction for
the pitched roof. Both sideyard setbacks are
nonconforming. They are requesting a front variance on the Laurel Hill
side and ILC of 21.3%, a reduction from the existing coverage of 21.7% because
some driveway is being eliminated. Since the property straddles two
zones, Nix testified that this variance request is reasonable; the ILC limit for
RA is 25%, 20&% for RAA. Sheasby noted that
the coverage is exacerbated by the long 220 foot driveway leading to
No public comment. Board comments: Sheasby asked for clarification that the enlarged rooms on the second floor are within the existing framework? Yes, Nix clarified that her FAR figures were correct but were placed on the wrong line of the form. Richter – is the sunroom included in the FAR? Yes, it is fully enclosed. The driveway reduction would be 593 square feet; coverage increase is 342 square feet for the mudroom plus 280 square feet for the new garage.
David Kane moved to approve the application as submitted, Bob Sheasby seconded the motion
carried by 7-0 roll call vote.
JOHN & JENNIFER ZIEGLER 270 Boulevard
Bl. 100 Lot 27 Appl. #07-522
Front, side, shoreline, height RA zone
Architect Rick Nelson
accompanied the applicants and clarified that they do not need the front or
shoreline variances that were included in the notice. Because this lot is
adjacent to the Borough lot of
They are seeking height and two sideyard variances, all for existing nonconformities. They propose removing the A/C units from the roof and placing them on concrete pads on the side, triggering a variance for an 8.6’ setback. Exhibit A1 was a colored version of the Dykstra Walker site plan. Photos A3 - 14 were distributed. The wings on each side of the house were originally porches with flat roofs. Builder Tom Menard testified that the beams in these two structures have deteriorated and present a safety issue. They would like to remove those wings and reconstruct them on the foundation with the same dimensions. The proposed addition at the rear (lakeside) of the property would be one story, reducing the grade plane 3 feet. The existing ridge would be 40.9 feet, calculated from the bottom of the addition to the top of the existing roof, where a maximum of 38’ is allowed. Nelson said the height variance is a technicality because the highest point of the house is not changing. Exhibit A2 showed the proposed south, west, east and north elevations.
Ziegler said they moved here
from the shore because they love
The application revision was summarized: 2 sideyard setback variances to reconstruct the nonconforming structures; height of 40.9 feet to lower the rear grade plane; and relocate the a/c units to a conforming location. Richter said if they were to come in to add another story and a half on top of the rear addition, would they need a variance? Gotthelf suggested a condition that the rear addition should remain one story with basement; that is, the height variance is limited to this proposal. Sheasby asked if the rear grade could be reduced to allow a walk-out basement. Nelson said he thinks that would trigger a soil moving permit and another height variance. Attorney Sullivan agreed that there is no point in adding language that is already covered by our ordinances. No grade change is proposed.
The motion to approve two sides and height variances with conditions was made by Chris Sullivan, seconded by Arthur Max and carried by 7-0 roll call vote.
Other Matters / Public Comment: The
public was reminded of the 5 minute limit to any individual’s comments.
An informal poll of the Board showed that David Kane was the only member who
could not attend the October 4 meeting because of the scheduled Back-to-School
night at Wildwood. At the September meeting, the Board will elect a
Chairman to serve through the end of the year. The meeting was adjourned
at
Respectfully submitted,
Marge Jackson, Secretary