MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES
July 17, 2008
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 Morris County Daily Record and by filing same with the Borough Clerk on June 30, 2008 and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Bolo, Cohen, Kane, Rusak, Max, Dietz Absent: Moody, Richter, Sheasby
Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan Council Liaison – none
REVIEW OF MINUTES: The minutes of the June 5 meeting were approved by voice vote.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
ANN BLANDA Appl.#08-539
Mark Cohen made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Peter Bolo and carried by 2-0 roll call of eligible voters.
DEBRA & MICHAEL GOLDFISCHER Appl.#08-538
Mary Dietz made the motion to adopt the resolution, seconded by Arthur Max and carried by 2-0 roll call of eligible voters.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: All individuals testifying were sworn in by Chair Bolo.
Carried from June 5:
DAVID & NOREEN O’BRIEN 57 Briarcliff Rd.
Bl. 78 Lot 35 Appl.#08-535
ILC, front & side RA zone
Architect for the applicants, Richard Nelson, described the application for ILC, front & side setbacks. Mrs. O’Brien & Mr. Nelson were sworn in. They decided to present this as a new application and will not rely on previous testimony so that all Board members were eligible to vote. They are seeking to expand the existing garage and reconfigure the attic, adding a dormer on the third floor. They are seeking an increase in ILC from 27.81% to 31.26% to accommodate the additional garage bay and a minimal turn around area. The existing front and sideyard nonconformities will remain but will not be exacerbated. The existing garage is under an old porch. It is not large enough for car storage and they are seeking a variance to enlarge the garage. In response to comments at the prior meeting, they have turned the garage location to not impede with the view corridor from the street to the lake. They also propose installation of a dry well to catch stormwater runoff from the property; Nelson testified that the drywell would result in a net improvement to the drainage conditions. They have kept the driveway at a minimal size to control coverage and it probably won’t allow a full K-turn, requiring them to back out onto the street. Nelson marked plans and elevations as Exhibits A1 thru A4, revised July 17, 2008.
The sideyard variance is required because of the change in the roof line; it will not extend beyond the existing nonconformity. David Kane requested that Nelson provide plans at least 11” x 17” in the future, particularly when setback variances are required. The Board agreed that 8 ½” x 11” plans are very difficult to read.
Mary Dietz asked why the garage could not be pushed farther back, under the house. Nelson said standard garage height is minimally at 8 feet. They would have to move the entire house up to push the garage back. At this point, the porch floor is a foot higher than the first floor of the house. The existing basement slab to the ceiling is 6’10”. To lower the garage floor, the driveway would have to be cut down, creating too steep a slope. Ordinances restrict driveway slope to 15%. Dietz and Kane asked if the garage could be shifted six feet to the east. Nelson said it is structurally possible but would be much more expensive. This would eliminate the front yard variance for the garage. Mark Cohen said his concern is the coverage; it is too bad that you have a small lot. Public comments: none.
Nelson offered to remove a shed and walkway to the east to reduce coverage by approximately 211 square feet. They would still offer to provide a drywell to control the stormwater more than is required by the State. Modified coverage calculations would be submitted if approved. Mary Dietz said that the 211 feet would not make up for the garage extending 10 feet from the house. Peter Bolo disagreed, saying this is an attractive and reasonable solution. The house will not appear large in this neighborhood because it is bordered by the canal and a public park.
Arthur Max asked for a review of the façade changes, noting that it is difficult to see it from these small plans. Nelson said the ridge elevation will change from 130’ to 133.75’.
Sullivan clarified that the applicant would like to have the current proposed garage addition, would install a dry well and remove 211 square feet of coverage. There was no motion for that proposal.
The alternative to slide the garage back 5 or 6 feet to conform with the front setback, still provide the dry well would not decrease the ILC to the current 29.7% level. Arthur Max suggested that Nelson come back with plans that they can read on Sep. 4. Bolo said he is comfortable with approving the alternative without them returning with new plans. David Kane moved to carry the application to Sep. 4, seconded by Pat Rusak, approved by 6-0 roll call vote.
New applications:
MARK & WENDY BENNETT 44 Lake Dr.
Bl. 95 Lot 18 Appl.#08-540
FAR, ILC & side RA zone
Attorney Sullivan informed the applicant that there were only six Board members attending. They need five affirmative votes for the floor area D variance. The Bennetts chose to proceed. Bennett described the two additions that had been added to the rear of the house. They propose removing those additions to construct a one-story addition for a kitchen and family room. They also propose a reconfiguration of the driveway to provide a turnaround area. Currently they need to back out between large stone walls onto Lake Drive, which is a busy street. They are looking to achieve structural improvements and also improve the safety factor.
Nelson reviewed the variance requests. ILC would increase from 29.99 to 32.49%, floor area from 17.4% to 18.06%; the sideyard setback will remain at 24.8’. They offered installation of a drywell to reduce stormwater runoff. Nelson noted that the proposed addition is only one story. If they were to make it two stories, the third floor would not be included in floor area and the resulting floor area ratio would be reduced. The existing third floor is just slightly more than 40% of the second floor, so it is a quirky situation. They also propose changing the roofline to make the second floor area more useful. The front porch would be renovated, second floor bay windows removed and French doors added for access to the porch that will provide a beautiful view of the lake. Nelson described how he believes the changes would reduce the appearance of mass both in the front and rear of the house. David Kane asked whether the detached garage was useable. Nelson and Bennett explained that it is not large enough for a full size vehicle but is used for storage of bikes, boat, etc. The first floor is at driveway level so the basement is a full flight below the driveway and difficult to access for storage. Mary Dietz said she had tried to turn around from that driveway and it was frightening; she also noted that the proposed turnaround at 20’ x 20’ is generous unless you plan to park two cars there. Nelson said that a 24’ square is standard for turnarounds in commercial parking lots.
Mark Cohen asked if there were some other area where coverage could be reduced. Bennett offered approximately 200 square feet by eliminating the shed and narrowing the driveway in front of the garage, resulting in only a 336 square foot net increase in coverage from existing conditions. Nelson & Bennett offered to find another 100 square feet of coverage reduction on the property.
Attorney Sullivan suggested a motion to grant floor area of 18.06%, ILC request would go down to 31.09%, and provision of a dry well (location and size to be designed by an engineer).
Mark Cohen made the motion, seconded by Arthur Max, approved by 6-0 roll call vote.
MR. & MRS. ROBERT PURNELL 48 Crestview Rd.
Bl. 44 Lot 37 Appl.#08-541
Front RAA zone
Attorney Maryann Brennan introduced the application. Martha Purnell said she grew up in Mountain Lakes and would like to raise her children here; she described her request for a front yard variance. Brennan said that the front variance is the only one required for this application. The existing structure has a nonconforming front setback. A second floor will be added and the front will be moved forward 1.7’ for the renovated entry. The front yard exception requires a setback of 44 feet. Nelson showed Exhibit A1, colored site plan with 7 additional sheets, including the current front elevation.
David Kane asked, if the renovation is so substantial, why couldn’t you keep the front setback to code at 44 feet? Nelson noted that the existing front stoop is at 39’. It is currently 6’4” deep and would be reduced to 5’11”. David Kane pointed out that, if the first floor walls are demolished, they need to return to this Board. Mary Dietz said she thinks the front porch could be set back to conform. Mark Cohen moved to approve the application as presented, seconded by David Kane and carried by 6-0 roll call vote.
David Kane reminded Nelson that he should provide 11” x 17” plans in the future.
ROBERT C. & MARY ELLEN WAGGONER 26 Lake Drive
Bl. 101, Lot 105 Appl. #08-542
Interpretation RA zone
Attorney Brennan described her request to have an interpretation of Ordinance 245-20B to determine its applicability to the subject property. Your jurisdiction as the Zoning Board is to read the ordinance and provide an interpretation. Brennan noted that the property is directly adjacent to the canal which is connected to Mountain Lake. A block is defined by the ordinance as running street to street. The required frontyard setback by bulk ordinances is 40 feet. Brennan read from 245.20. “When there are two or more buildings…etc.” The average is triggered by using the adjacent building to the left and to the right. We contend that there is no adjacent building to the right (the lot contains the canal), so you cannot average. All of the buildings are not to the left or to the right. There are buildings both to the left and the right, but not adjacent on the right. Brennan referred to Dan Hagberg’s 6/23/08 memo to Borough Manager Joe Tempesta, noting that the Club building should not be considered in the front setback calculation.
Board members asked if Brennan had calculations or photographs of the other houses on the block. Brennan contended that they are not applicable.
Sullivan said that we do not have the development application before us.
Bolo said he believes the spirit of this ordinance is to provide consistency in the setbacks of buildings on the block, regardless if there is vacant property between the buildings.
Brennan pointed out that the role of the ZBA is not to create the ordinance but to determine how the existing ordinance applies to this piece of property.
Max asked if Brennan considers the lake as a vacant lot. It seems to me that the ordinance is designed to consider this type of property.
David Kane asked to see the previous resolution from an application for this property. Brennan provided the 2003 resolution that approved a front yard setback of 98.3’ and approved a reduced building envelope.
Brennan explained that the issue here is not where the house would be located but whether a minimum building envelope is available.
The Board and Attorney Sullivan agreed that the ordinance should be reviewed and clarified.
Mary Dietz made the motion that the front yard exception applies considering the two houses to the left (east); motion seconded by David Kane, carried by 6-0 roll call vote.
The Board formally moved to send 245-20B to the Ordinance Committee, Council and Planning Board, informing them that we reviewed this, the language should be clarified. David Kane and Mark Cohen moved that the letter be written on behalf of the Chair.
Carried from Dec. 6, 2007 to September 4, 2008:
REINO TRUUMEES 137 Lookout Rd.
Bl. 42 Lot 9 Appl.# 07-526
ILC, side, soil moving permit RAA zone
Mark Cohen moved to carry the application; David Kane seconded. Truumees has granted an extension of time for the Board to act. He will need to renotice the neighbors.
Other Matters / Public Comment:
The public was reminded of the five minute limit to any individual’s comments.
Rick Nelson noted that Hagberg is very fair and clear; he does not consider a carriage house or garage in computing front yard setback.
Attorney Brennan said that the lakefront exception ordinance is vague and should be addressed. It should be consistent with the front exception. They would also like consideration of other structures in the front yard or on the lakefront (added to previous motion.)
Chair Bolo asked whether the August 7 meeting should be cancelled because no new applications have been filed and many Board members will be unavailable. David Kane moved to cancel August 7 and carry applications and resolutions to September 4, seconded by Arthur Max and approved by voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Marge Jackson, Secretary