MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES
May 1, 2008
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 adoption of the annual notice on January 3, 2008. Said resolution was mailed to The Citizen and The Daily Record, filed with the Borough Clerk and posted on the bulletin board in the Borough Hall on January 7, 2008 and made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Richter, Kane, Moody, Sheasby, Rusak, Max (arr. 7:35) Absent: Bolo, Cohen, Dietz
Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan Council Liaison – Charles Gormally
REVIEW OF MINUTES: The minutes of the April 3 meeting were approved by voice vote.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
MARGO & KEVIN GILLESPIE Appl.#08-531
Jim Moody made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by David Kane and carried by 4-0 roll call of eligible voters.
KEN & DIANE STEPHENS Appl.#08-532
Jim Moody made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by David Kane and carried by 4-0 roll call of eligible voters.
KATHERINE KEITH & JOHN KEITH Appl.#08-533
Bob Sheasby made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Jim Moody and carried by 3-0 roll call of eligible voters.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: All individuals testifying were sworn in by Chair Richter.
New applications:
PIERRE & JACKQUELYN BAY 430 Morris Ave.
Bl. 114 Lot 18 Appl.#08-534
FAR, ILC & side RA zone
Architect Marjorie Roller introduced the applicants. Attorney Sullivan pointed out that there were 6 Board members present and five affirmative votes are required for the D variance. They could carry or could present their application and wait for more members or could proceed with this number of Board members. They chose to proceed.
Roller described the property at the corner of Morris and Crane, noting the large living room and beautiful interior renovations. They propose replacing a 62 sq. foot one story addition at the rear of the house with a 173 sq. foot two story structure to expand the kitchen and add a bedroom. Exhibits A1 & 2 were photos of the front and rear of the house.
They need to keep some driveway for turnaround at that corner but do not need all the asphalt that currently exists. They propose removing paving, some of which encroaches onto Borough property, reducing the impervious coverage from 27.59% to 27.04%
FAR would increase from 19.02 to 20.38%; the sideyard setback is being reduced from 17.67’ to 16.4’, a decrease of 3.3 feet.
Bob Sheasby asked what the FAR would be if the 3rd story were included. Roller estimated 26%. Chris Richter asked if the garage is used on the left side of the house. Pierre testified that there is a slope and they can’t really use the garage. The contractor proposes a drywell in that area. Richter noted that, if the driveway is not being used on that side of the house, he would like to eliminate more of it. Roller repeated that the applicants need to have space to turn around before exiting onto Morris Ave.
There was no public comment.
Board questions: Jim Moody – the pie-shaped lot creates a hardship relative to the side setback; the encroachment is toward a Borough lot, so there is no issue of neighbor encroachment. Moving to the 21st century includes an improved kitchen. Sheasby agreed; this is a positive improvement. Rusak also agreed. Jim Moody moved to approve the application, seconded by Arthur Max and carried by 6-0 roll call vote.
BLAKE & PAULA ANDERSON 297 Morris Ave.
Bl. 103 Lot 29 Appl#08-536
ILC RA zone
Architect Joan Nix corrected the application address to 297 Morris Avenue (not 103). She testified that the notice had the correct address. Nix said the Andersons moved here last summer. The property of this house was subdivided 10 years ago. They would like to create a terrace in the front of the house because there are currently two sets of French doors that open out to a four foot drop. Exhibits A1-3 contained 5 photos of the house. This house already exceeds the FAR and ILC limits. This proposal would reduce the ILC from 26.56 to 26.09%. The frontyard exception rule requires an 80.4’ setback; the current setback is 85.12’, proposed is 76.62’, measured to the nearest corner of the portico. The portico of two columns supporting a roof is not enclosed.
When the property was subdivided, the ILC was supposed to be 25% with a single width driveway. However, the driveway is now double width, allowing one car to park and a second car to pass it. There is no garage on the property. David Kane asked if the entry steps should not be included. Attorney Sullivan read 245-20G(5), stating that short entry steps 6 feet in width and projecting less than 10 feet from the wall are exempt from setback inclusion subject to a ruling from the reviewing Board. Richter noted that the proposed columns would be outside the existing setback; he expressed concern that the property was developed beyond the subdivision limits. Nix noted that the resolution of the subdivision prohibited the heating of the porch. The room has been heated and improved; however, the ordinances have changed and an unheated room would now be included as floor area because it is enclosed. Heat had been added by a previous owner prior to the Anderson’s purchase of the home.
Sheasby asked what kind of heating system serviced the porch. Anderson – it is a steam radiator, the same as the rest of the house; the plumbing looks like the rest of the house.
There were no public comments.
Board Comments – Arthur Max asked whether there was any briefing by the attorneys or real estate agents when they purchased the house. Anderson – they knew there were restrictions but they didn’t know that there were any illegal improvements.
Richter asked why the columns needed to extend beyond the platform. Nix – only because the railings need to be attached; there will be no change to the steps. Nix said there is 12 feet from the front of the house to the edge of the platform. The columns will be 20” in diameter, matching existing columns on the sides of the house. Nix feels that the columns are architecturally appropriate for this house.
Sheasby – I struggle with how things are changed without enforcement. I think the house is lacking a front structure and I believe you have created a better architectural façade. I am concerned about the mysterious heating of the porch. Moody – this is a great solution.
Richter – since the preexisting steps are excluded from the front yard exception, it should be noted in the decision.
David Kane moved to approve the variances with the change in address and correction in calculations. Chris Richter seconded the motion, approved by 6-0 roll call vote.
JEFF & VIRGINIA CASSIDY 256 Boulevard
Bl. 100 Lot 21.02 Appl.#08-537
FAR, ILC, lakefront & front RA zone
Architect Joan Nix presented Exhibits A1 & A2, photos of the Cassidy house. Nix noted that the Cassidys currently own two houses in Mountain Lakes but they live in this one. They are concerned about the appearance of the house from the Boulevard and from Lake Drive. The current FAR is 31.97 and propose a reduction to 29.13%. ILC of 31.42 would be reduced to 29.14%. The frontyard exception requirement would be 50.2 feet; retention of the current setback of 46.4 feet would accommodate a revised roofline.
They propose restoring the original garage space to that use; it was illegally converted to living space many years ago. They also propose restructuring the roof to a gable. They would remove some sections of paving but can not remove more paving because of the fence on the adjacent property blocking the view of approaching traffic on the Boulevard.
Nix described two additional deck proposals on the lake side of the house; this would add a horizontal line to the tall façade facing the lake. The proposed deck would be 6 ½’ by 15’. The high FAR exists because the ordinances have changed. The ceilings are 9’ high and the basement is now exposed so it is included in floor area. It is nonconforming because of changes to the ordinances. We don’t know when the paving was added but we are willing to remove some of it and intend to landscape the area where the paving would be removed.
The proposed deck railing could be viewed by the neighbor but it would not be an enclosed structure.
Kane & Rusak said that, if the garage structure needs to be demolished, they would like to see it pushed back from the Boulevard. Nix said they are requesting 30 square feet of additional floor area new living space created by the pitch of the roof. They are not seeking more living space, they just want to improve the appearance.
Public comments: Jeff Ansel, adjacent neighbor at 260 Boulevard, said he recently purchased their home. Ansel commended the Cassidys for their desire to improve the façade. He objects only to the additional decking, which would infringe on his view of the lake. Since the home already has extra lot coverage, additional decking would exacerbate the coverage issue.
Michael Sullivan pointed out that the second story deck does not exacerbate the setback or coverage; it is increased only by the ground level deck.
Richter – he has no issue with the improvements to the front of the house. ILC is being reduced. I do realize that the back deck would improve your view but I don’t approve the encroachment toward the lake. Sheasby – I agree with the effort to break up the height of the house from the lake; that is a strong architectural point.
Cassidy said that they conceived the decks after they looked at the neighboring houses, whereas their house appears vertical from the lake. The proposed deck would be on the first floor that is 12 feet from grade level in the rear. Rusak & Kane suggested that the deck could be angled toward the house on the side of the Ansel’s house. Ansel said that this deck would only impact their view toward the Club. Ansel submitted Exhibit O-1, taken today to show the view under consideration that would be impeded by the proposed deck. Nix proposed replacing the existing windows along the lake with doors to access the deck.
Jim Moody asked whether the deck could be reduced to 4 feet in width or could it be angled from the corner of the house? Michael Sullivan suggested that the votes be bifurcated.
Jim Moody moved to approve the FAR, ILC & front variances as submitted; David Kane seconded; approval was affirmed by 6-0 roll call vote.
The applicant requested that the deck request be modified to reduce the depth from 6’ to not exceed 4 feet. The current house violates the setback by approximately 6 inches. Jim Mody moved to approve as modified, Bob Sheasby seconded. The roll call vote of 3-3 denied the shoreline variance.
DEBRA & MICHAEL GOLDFISCHER 46 Wilcox Dr.
Bl. 86 Lot 38 Appl.#08-538
FAR & front RA zone
Pat Rusak is a neighbor and recused herself from this hearing. Michael Goldfischer
was accompanied by architect Matthew Smetana. After Attorney Sullivan pointed out that they will need five affirmative votes, Goldfischer chose to proceed. Smetana described the plan to improve the façade of the home by adding gables and constructing a room over the existing garage. The frontyard exception requires a setback of 55.2 feet. The existing setback is 31.2’, new construction would be at 40.75 feet. Smitana testified that the existing houses to the right have setbacks similar to this request. Exhibit A-1 was a photo of existing house. Exhibits A-2 & A-3 were photos of neighboring houses. The proposed addition over the garage would create FAR of 17.46%. We did not create a full second story roofline to minimize the floor area. The proposed entryway would project slightly; the existing setback is measured from the corner of the steps where the width would be reduced. The entry modifications are purely for aesthetics. The addition over the garage would exceed the FAR restrictions in this zone by less than ½%. In order to stay within the bulk requirements, the addition would have to be set back from the garage.
No public comment.
Board comments: Jim Moody – this is deminimis; Richter – the 17% limit was established for a reason. I would like to understand why you can’t comply. Smetana explained how he was attempting to balance the two sides of the house and provide adequate useable space above the garage. If they were to reduce the roof pitch, the new room would not have useable space. Goldfischer reminded the Board that many of the houses on this street have been expanded and this house would not appear to be oversized.
Attorney Sullivan suggested that the application be bifurcated, i.e. vote on the front yard variance and perhaps they could devise a plan that would not exceed FAR of 17%. If that were to happen, they should resubmit their plan with the modifications. Richter – if they can work out the rooflines and create a plan with FAR within 17%, he has no objection.
Sheasby said he did not want to vote on a plan he has not seen. Moody agreed.
Goldfischer agreed to carry the application to the June 5 meeting.
Richter said he was looking for more detail of the existing and proposed floor plans to know how a reduction in floor area would be impacted.
Carried from May 1 to June 5, 2008:
DAVID & NOREEN O’BRIEN 57 Briarcliff Rd.
Bl. 78 Lot 35 Appl.#08-535
ILC, front & side RA zone
Carried from Dec. 6 to June 5, 2008:
REINO TRUUMEES 137 Lookout Rd.
Bl. 42 Lot 9 Appl.# 07-526
ILC, side, soil moving permit RAA zone
Other Matters / Public Comment:
The public was reminded of the five minute limit to any individual’s comments. There were none.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Marge Jackson, Secretary