MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

           December 6, 2007

 

Chair Peter Bolo 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 November 26, 2007 and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.  

 

ROLL CALL:

Present:  Bolo, Richter, Kane, Moody, Sheasby, Sullivan (arr. 8:05), Rusak, Max                   

Absent:  Cohen

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

 

REVIEW OF MINUTES:  The minutes of the October 4 meeting were approved by voice vote.

 

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:

TIMOTHY & NICOLE WRIGHT                   Appl. #07-524

D. Kane made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by P. Rusak and carried by 5 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.

 

 ALOHA FOREVER BRIGHT KIDS, INC.                Appl.# 07-525

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

 

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

              REINO TRUUMEES                         137 Lookout Rd.

Bl. 42 Lot 9                                        Appl.# 07-526

ILC, side, soil moving permit               RAA zone

Reino Truumees and Kevin Page, Professional Engineer, were sworn in by Chairman Bolo.  Mr. Page’s credentials were reviewed and he was accepted by the Board as an expert witness.

Truumees testified that they would like to install a pool in their rear yard, requiring two variances, sideyard setback for the filter and pump head and improved coverage for the pool and patio.  They have designed this to keep as large a back yard as possible so there is play area for their children.  The neighbors to the left, whose house would be closest to the proposed pad are 25 to 30 feet from the pad.  Ms. Catherwood has written a letter confirming her agreement to this proposal.  The Catherwood’s roofline would be at an equal height to the equipment.  Truumees described that they propose installing landscaping so the neighbor would not see the equipment.  The pump is a “Whisper Flow”; the technology is virtually without sound so we wouldn’t even hear it when we are in the pool.  Truumees described the pool and distributed the Pugliese catalog to demonstrate that they were natural looking pools designed to blend in the landscape.  He described the decking in the current plans as small. 

Kevin Page testified that his firm does many pool plot plans.  He described this property and the proposed plan.  Page said that there are three adjacent neighbors:  the water tank to the east, open space to the north, and neighbor Catherwood to the west.  Page pointed out that the driveway enters the property in an unusual way on the left of the property, noting that the driveway creates more impervious coverage (almost 3000 square feet) than the proposed pool plan.  Page testifed that the survey submitted is new, not based on an old plan.  Page said the pool would be located in the highest elevation, at grade in the rear.  The material to be excavated would be left on the site.  Page described this proposal as two-dimensional; it would not be visible from any neighboring property.  There would be no impact other than an increase in runoff; in order to accommodate the runoff, we are adding two drywells.  The equipment pad would not have an adverse impact on the neighbor and they have approved the location.  The pool is 1100 square feet; the most significant impact on coverage is the driveway; that is a hardship.  The only real neighbor is Catherwood, who has approved, so we ask that the Board consider approving the plan.

Board discussion:  Sheasby asked about the soil moving permit.  Attorney Sullivan said that the major soil moving permit is required but notice was not provided and we don’t have our engineer’s report.  If the variances are approved, the soil moving permit will be addressed at the January meeting.  Moody asked about the wall, 20 to 25 feet high and approximately 16” wide. 

Richter – the grading in the back of the property is not as it was when I looked at it a few years ago; How did it get from there to what it is now?  Truumees said he had DiGuiseppe do some regrading.  Richter estimated there has been approximately 2000 yards moved and asked if they received a soil moving permit?  He noticed there have been significant changes.  Were permits obtained?  Truumees – we just did regrading.  Richter – it appears that there could be conforming locations on the property for the filter, pump and generator; could you explain why the location can’t conform?  Truumees said that the pool people preferred to install it at the deep end of the pool.

Kane - with all this soil movement, why not flip the pool and equipment?  This seems to be a clean slate so you could place the equipment elsewhere.   In response to why the pad couldn’t be moved to the east side Truumees said, aesthetically, it would detract from the view of the back yard.

Arthur Max – it is a beautiful design, but when you ask to increase the coverage 40% over the bulk requirements, you have not proven a hardship.

Moody asked how much the drywells reduce runoff?

Richter – I believe there only 11 pools in Mountain Lakes.  How far is the closest trail from your property?  Truumees – I believe it is 120 yards from my property and approximately 70 to 80 feet lower in elevation.

Pat Rusak asked Chris Richter how the dry well impacts the water runoff.

Page – these pools are not intended to be drained after they are established.  Many municipalities do not consider the pool in coverage.  He reiterated that this property is unique because of the driveway; that is a hardship.  Two of the three neighbors are not residences.  A three dimensional structure has much more impact than a one dimensional pool.  This is not a ‘McMansion’; the driveway creates more coverage than the roof area.  The emergency generator does not have to be there, it could be moved.  The pool filter is very quiet, but we could slide it back.  Moody – why is the generator necessary?  Truumees – it is an insurance policy.

Bolo – is it true that the hardship is the steep slopes and the long driveway?  Page – yes.  The only impact to this project is runoff and we can handle that with the dry wells.

Bolo reviewed the positive criteria under the C1 proof (hardship).  You also have to meet the negative criteria, that is, no substantial detriment to area properties.  Under C2, you have to prove that the purposes of the MLUL are advanced and that the benefits outweigh the detriments, that there is a public benefit derived from these variances.

Page – the pool would not be visible from the street, it would be approximately 175’ from the road.

Bolo asked if the applicant believes this project advances or does not impair the Master Plan.

Page – even after this project is installed, there will still be substantial front, sides and rear yard for the family.

Chris Sullivan – if the surrounding properties were private and had houses, would your proposal impact those properties?  Page – no, because this property is set up so high, this would not impact their line of sight.  Sullivan – we cannot guarantee that the Borough property will not be occupied in the future.

Sheasby – a 20 x 45 foot pool is large, did you consider other variables?   Truumees said he did not think the decking was large, it would only accommodate two tables.  The decking is approx. 1544 square feet. 

Rusak – I don’t think the wall in the front or side of the house has been included in ILC.  Page – no, we typically don’t include walls.  Bolo – that should be included.

Sheasby questioned the differences between page 3 of 3 and the pool on 2 of 3.  Page – one is a plumbing schematic, each Pugliese is individually designed.   You should look at 2 of 3. 

Truumees noted that, if approved, he would not use the Borough supply, the water would be trucked in.

 

Bolo opened the hearing to the public.

Ann Anderson, 19 Lookout, resident on the other side of the water tank, asked if there would be a change of grade on that side.  Page – we would create a grass burm.  Anderson said, having listened to the Board’s discussion, I hope you will grant the variance.  There would be no view of the pool from the street; nothing would impact a visitor.  There are frequent power outages on the hill, and I think a generator is a good idea.

 

Richter – I agree that there may be little impact to the neighbors but I don’t think this property is unique to the hill section, there are many long driveways.  I don’t think this qualifies as a hardship.  I would agree that the surface area of the pool should be considered if dry wells are installed but that does not meet the ordinance restrictions. 

Moody – I think this piece of land has a topographic disadvantage.  I believe that Pugliese pools can blend in with nature, but I cannot live with a generator 10 feet from the property line.  Does the pool pad have to be in the setback? 

Kane – I understand what you are trying to do to camouflage the equipment, but I have not heard any alternatives or suggestions to reduce the coverage.

Rusak – agreed with Kane.

Sheasby – pools don’t fall in the category of this being a unique situation to justify the variances.

Bolo – I don’t consider this a hardship; I agree there is not adverse effect to the neighbors, but I believe this plan impairs the zoning and master plan of Mountain.Lakes.

Moody – I’d like to see different motions for setback and ILC.

Richter – could you look at an alternative to reduce the ILC?

Page – I have looked at the apron of the driveway, it is huge. 

Richter – if there is a way to look at this and minimize the variances, could you reduce coverage?  I see opportunities to revise this request.

Truumees – our children are on competitive swim teams, so we would like to have the 45’ length.

Attorney Sullivan – you can ask for a vote or you could come back with revisions.

Page – we ask you to carry this to the next meeting and we will consider our options.  The motion by Moody to carry the application to January 3 was seconded by Kane and carried by voice vote.

 

Other Matters / Public Comment: 

Chairman Bolo read a Resolution of Appreciation to Christopher Sullivan, who is retiring from the Board.  Jim Moody made the motion to adopt the resolution, seconded by Bob Sheasby and carried by voice vote.

 

 

 

The public was reminded of the 5 minute limit to any individual’s comments.    

Fred Kantor, 81 Hanover Road, made the following comments:

Your placing an arbitrary limit of 5 minutes is probably illegal.  You would have a difficult time explaining to a judge that you want to go home.  The 5 minute rule has followed me around.from the Board of Education to Council to this Board and also the Facilities Committee.  Judge Korpita found me innocent of disrupting a public meeting.  Kanter reviewed his record of arrests with the Borough.  He repeated his request for a written apology from Mr. Richter and from this Board stating that the Board was wrong in the arrest.  He would like Mr. Sullivan to be removed from Counsel for this Board.  He would like a refund of his expenses.  He is asking for an answer tonight.

 

Jim Moody moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by David Kane.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

           

 

 

 

                                                                                                    Marge Jackson, Secretary