MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

September 6, 2007

Vice-Chair Chris Richter 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 August 20, 2007 and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.  

ROLL CALL:

Present:  Richter, Bolo, Moody, Sheasby, Sullivan, Rusak, Max                        Absent:  Cohen, Kane

Also Present:  Attorney Michael Sullivan                                                           Council Liaison – none

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

ELECTION OF CHAIR:  Bob Sheasby nominated Peter Bolo to serve as Chairman for the remainder of 2007, Jim Moody seconded the nomination; Bolo was elected by 7-0 roll call vote.  Dr. Bolo noted that he would appreciate feedback and advice from Board members.

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:

        SUSAN & JON RAGLAND   Appl. #07-520

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.

        WILLKE/POGORZELSKI      Appl. #07-521

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

            JOHN & JENNIFER ZIEGLER          Appl. #07-522

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

PUBLIC HEARINGS:  All applicants and witnesses were sworn in by Chair Bolo.

Carried from July 5, 2007:

        PAUL & PHYLLIS DEERING            8 Oak Lane

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

        Front                                                    RA zone

All sitting Board members were present for the initial hearing July 5, so all were eligible to hear and vote on this application.  Paul Deering said they have lived here 14 years and have a large, unusually shaped piece of property; the house was constructed in 1912.  They do not intend to enclose the proposed porch, but even if it were enclosed they would meet all FAR and ILC restrictions.  They have modified the design to include columns and openings to make the proposal look more like a porch.

Exhibit A1 was a set of 13 photos; A2, plot plan revised 9/06/07.  In response to Board comments they have moved the porch to be set back 28.6 feet from Oak Lane.  They have reduced the size of the proposed patio to be set back 16’8” from Oak Lane.

Deering pointed out the photos on A1 to show that the 8 foot hedges along Oak Lane and Briarcliff would block the view of the porch and patio from both streets.  He also showed the location of two neighbors’ patios to demonstrate that this proposal would afford privacy for him and his neighbors.

Chris Richter asked for the existing setback on Oak Lane, Deering said 24.4’.

Bob Sheasby asked for Attorney Sullivan to explain how the benefits and detriments balance.

Sullivan said that the applicant has the burden of proving that the purposes of the NJMLUL would be advanced and the benefits would outweigh the detriment.  Under the negative criteria, no variance or relief may be granted if it substantially impairs the purposes of the zoning ordinances or is a detriment to the public good.  Under a C1 argument, you still have to meet the negative criteria; that is the hardship on the applicant based on the shape of the property.  Chris Richter said that the fact that this property has two frontages creates a hardship.  Chris Sullivan agreed that the property lends itself to this location.  Bob Sheasby asked why the rear of the house is not a viable location.  Deering said it would be workable to shrink the patio to be set back 20 feet from Oak Lane.

Michael Sullivan suggested that, if approved, there should be two conditions:  the porch not be enclosed or heated and the patio be set back at least 20 feet from Oak Lane. 

Chris Richter said that this is an issue for the Ordinance Committee to consider; he has seen new construction with four screened porches that are not included in FAR calculations but add to the mass of the house.  Mike Sullivan suggested that the Ordinance Committee look at this issue since we cannot legally prevent them from enclosing the porch because they would be within the FAR regulations.  Richter – we should place a 14.4% FAR restriction on this property.  Arthur Max wanted to be sure that the applicant presented enough factual evidence for us to grant the variance.  Deering said that this proposed location provides the most privacy for them and all of their neighbors.  He also said that there is a significant slope to the property where the porch would be located.  That would not be a good location for the patio.

There was no public comment.

Board comments:  Pat Rusak – I feel that the front setback to the porch is still too close to the road; the restriction is a minimum of 40 feet.  Arthur Max – I am uncomfortable with any construction being too close to the street.  Sheasby – the house encroaches the setbacks on more than one side.  I am not comfortable approving additional aggravation to the setbacks.  Chris Sullivan – they have answered the questions about the location of the patio because of the slope.  Moody – I think this is a C1 hardship, it makes sense to take advantage of this large space and triangle at the corner.  I would not approve less than 20 feet.  Richter – the Deerings did not explain that on the left side of their house, the neighbors have a large patio and fireplace.  This is a one story porch blocked by an eight foot privet hedge.  Moody suggested a condition that the hedge be maintained.  Richter disclosed that he is a friend of the Deerings and has been on the property but he feels he can make an unbiased judgment.  Bolo – is comfortable with the proposal, but thinks the porch should be included in the FAR; the patio set back should be limited to 24.4 feet or could be eliminated.

Jim Moody moved to grant the C1 variance for the 20’ setback to the patio and 28.6’ setback to the porch; the hedge should be maintained at a minimum of 6 feet along Oak Lane and the porch should be included in FAR calculations.  Chris Sullivan seconded the motion.  Arthur Max asked if the applicant would accept the 24’ setback for the patio.  Moody pointed out that the patio is not contributing to the mass of the house.  The motion was approved by 5-2 roll call vote (Rusak & Sheasby denied.)

New applications:        

SALLY HARRISON                           82 Pocono Road

            Bl. 115, Lot 14                         Appl. #07-523

            ILC, side                                              RA zone

Sally Harrison was accompanied by Architect Larry Korinda, who described the 5’x10’ addition to provide a modest pantry and powder room (no powder room currently exists on the first floor.)  The footprint of the addition will be over an existing deck.  The right setback is 23’6” and this addition will not encroach any closer than the existing nonconformity.  The ILC is nonconforming at 28.79%.  A 98 square foot walkway will be removed, additional 49 square feet of parking area and the 49 sq.’ addition will result in no net increase to the ILC.  A colored version of the site plan was marked as Exhibit A1, the colored version of the elevations and floor plan was A2.  FAR will be 12.78%, well under the 17% limit.  This is a very modest request.  A3 was a board of six photos to show the deck that will be replaced, the screening of this area from the neighbor and the view from other neighbors’ properties.  In response to Chris Richter’s question, there was no record of previous variances to determine how the ILC reached 28.79%.  The removal of the stone wall is logical because there is no entrance at that area.  Arthur Max suggested that the stone wall could be kept.  Korinda said the sidewalk goes to nowhere.  The gravel was probably increased to provide maneuverability.  Richter estimated that there would be room to park six cars in that area.  Korinda said that if they reduced the parking area, they could save approximately 75 square feet..  Richter suggested, if they removed five feet on each side, it would reduce coverage by 1.87%, reducing the ILC to 27%; he said there would be plenty of room to circulate.

There was no public comment.

Board comments:  Chris Richter moved to approve the sideyard variance and reduce the ILC to 27%, seconded by Jim Moody and carried by 7-0 roll call vote.

Other Matters / Public Comment:

Nicole and Tom Renna requested an additional 8 month extension to their variance approval.  Attorney Sullivan pointed out that the variance will expire if they do not commence construction within 18 months of the Resolution date.  He suggested that the Ordinance Committee state that the Board has the power to grant extensions.  It should be more clearly addressed.  Richter said there is a process in place but, since we have the 18 month restriction, the Board may or may not have granted the same variance years later.  Jim Moody moved to extend the variance, seconded by Arthur Max, and carried by 7-0 roll call vote.  A letter granting the extension will be sent to the Renna’s.  Sheasby asked about enforcement.  Attorney Sullivan reminded the Board that enforcement is in the jurisdiction of the zoning department.

The public was reminded of the 5 minute limit to any individual’s comments.  There were none. 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                    Marge Jackson, Secretary