MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES
May 7, 2009
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 adoption of the annual notice on January 8, 2009. 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 12, 2009 and made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Bolo, Cohen, Sheasby, Rusak, Dietz, Abate, Richter, Max Absent: Kane
Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan and Council Liaison Doug McWilliams
REVIEW OF MINUTES: The amended minutes of the April 2 meeting were approved by voice vote.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
ROBERT & DEBRA DEWING Appl. #09-551
Mark Cohen made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Bob Sheasby and approved by roll call of eligible voters.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: All applicants and professionals were sworn in by Chair Bolo.
JENNIFER ZIEGLER 270 Boulevard
Bl.100, Lot27 Appl. #09-552
Front Yard RA Zone
Mrs. Ziegler showed pictures of her home to the Committee (exhibit A1 – A4). She wishes to add a stone wall in front of the house in shape of an arch. The family is looking for privacy and security. She stated the wall would be 3’ tall and 1 ½” wide. The pillars, 2’ x 2’ wide, at each end of the horseshoe are 3’ 9” tall. The structure would be 6’ from the road. All the stone material will come from the site. She presented pictures of other walls on her street, the Boulevard. The photos were placed into exhibit (A5 – A16).
Bob Sheasby asked about the height in the middle of the arch. Mrs. Ziegler said the middle of the wall was 3’ but could reach 5’at some points. Chris Richter asked about the width of the right of way in front of her property. He stated the wall could not be placed in the right of way. Mrs. Ziegler provided 2 surveys to determine the right of way. The drawing from Mr. Hudson shows the location of the right a way. Mr. Richter explained he wall needed to be placed at the property line but not in the right of way. Attorney Michael Sullivan stated we could impose a condition in the resolution to make sure the wall is not placed in the right away.
Mary Dietz then explained the need for the wall to be only 30 high since it is considered a structure. The new ordinance the town is working on will be limiting the height of rock walls to 30”. Chris Richter explained the homeowner could change the grading to fill the area in front of and in the back of the wall to meet the 30”. It was suggested she could put a landscaping bed to achieve the correct height. Peter Bolo pointed out the need to keep the town’s park like setting as the reason for the wall height. The final product should not exceed the 30” in height as being spelled out in the new proposed ordinance.
Chris Richter made motion that the application should be resubmitted showing the wall placed at property line and not exceeding 30” in height. Applicant must resubmit. The motion was seconded by Arthur Max. The vote was 7-0.
JEFF MASESSA 70 Hanover Road
Bl.72, Lot14 Appl. #09-553
Front and Side Yard RA Zone
Jeff Masessa just moved to town and would like to modernize the property his family has purchased. The property is a corner lot on Powerville and Hanover, with the front of the house faced Hanover. Peter Bolo stated that the site plan being submitted were incorrect. Setbacks must include a patio on grade. Seth Leeb said he would now include the patio therefore 18’ 2” will now be the proposed front setback. Seth Leeb showed photos of the existing house (exhibit A1). He then proposed a series of additions and renovations to the house. They would be heating and enclosing the porch. On westerly side of the property the existing one car garage is not large enough for a car. The existing garage has a lean two effect in the back to pull the car in but you still could not open the doors of the car once inside.
They would like to enlarge the garage an additional 3’ 9” to fit a car inside. The site plan was entered as exhibit A3. Drawings were submitted depicting the removal the existing deck and the addition of a second story over existing house (exhibit A4). They would also be changing slope of the roof. The house is still below the FAR and impervious coverage imitations.
Peter Bolo asked why they didn’t put the new garage in place of the existing patio. Mr. Leeb stated he felt the existing location of the garage is the best location. The proposed garage does line up with the neighbors garage. The height of the garage is increasing. There is already an existing bedroom over the garage but they will be adding enough space to the room to increase the headroom. The Masessa’s would not have the turning radius to get into the garage if it were placed where the existing patio was. It would increase the impervious coverage, limit the usage yard and they would have to take out an old oak. Chris Richter did not like the closeness of the garage to the neighbors creating an ally between the two properties. Arthur Max asked if they could achieve what they want by making the garage longer. The width is the issue rather than the length. Pat Rusak presented an historic picture showing the garage in the back. She would like to keep the garage there.
Chris Richter asked about the rear access to the patio location. Why was the door not off Family Room? Seth Leeb would like the door off the kitchen but could make the change staying in the 24’ 2” setback. Mary Dietz asked how they would be finishing the outside of the house. Seth Leeb it will be all stucco with wavy wood near the entrance.
There were no questions from the public. Testimony was presented by two residents. Marc Walker, 15 Barton Road, liked the driveway off Hanover for traffic safety. Peter Holmberg, 74 Hanover Road, likes the home but has a concern about side setback from changing from 14 to 11 feet. The location of existing garage is already a tight situation; the changes would only make that worse.
Bob Sheasby asked for Seth Leeb to explain the view from Powerville Road, exactly how large would the house actual appear. The front will be wider on Hanover but not Powerville. The house will look more massive coming forward. From the road going down Hanover you will not see the addition. You will see it coming from Powerville Road. Mary Dietz thought it was too tight for the garage to be made larger. Chris Richter thought that going to a 13’ foot setback was enough. It would still allow then to increase the size of the garage. Mark Cohen did not like the setback at only 11 feet. Bob Sheasby stated that they should keep garage where it was. He liked the application but maybe they should reduce the size of the garage. Pat Rusak would like the patio moved.
Seth Leeb offered to reduce the garage by 2 feet making side setback to 13’8” in back and 13’9” in the front. This would also reduce the second floor room as well. He would rework the patio to be in the 24.4 setback.
Mary Dietz made a motion to accept the application reducing the width of the garage to13’8”, an on grade patio with a 24.4 front yard setback. Peter Bolo added that they maintain tree protection. A second was made by Pat Rusak. The vote was 6 to 1.
TOBIA AND LISA IPPOLITO 15 Crestview Road
Bl.45, Lot 1 Appl. #09-554
Front Yard RA Zone
Roy Kurnos is the attorney for the Ippolitos. He explained on west side of the property is North Glen, a paper road. The paper road is 30 ft wide 300 feet long. Based on information available to him it is his opinion that the town has no plans to improve the road. The property 15 Crestview is a corner lot, therefore they need to two front yard setbacks. The applicant is seeking relief from the 40 feet front yard setback on the North Glen side of the property.
Mark Walker, an Engineer, and Anthony Garrett, a professional planner, each gave their professional testimony concerning the property. Mark Walker explained the following: Due to the paper road the access to the property must be from Crestview Road. The property backs up to the Tourne, it is large and flat and in the RA zone. It is 3x the size of the needed lot size. The front yard setback on Crestview will be determined by two houses to the right thus making a 65 ft. setback on that side of the property. It was their opinion that if North Glen is ever developed they could subdivide the property into 2 lots. As a result they would like to treat the North Glen side of the property as a side yard rather than a corner lot with 2 front yard setbacks. In calculating the impervious coverage they included the walls. They will be removing some of the existing walls. The excess stones will be removed from the property. They plan to reduce the impervious coverage from 26.7 to 25%. If they use the normal 40 front setback they would not exceed the impervious coverage. If they maintain the 65 ft. front yard setback they will exceed the impervious coverage
Roy Kurnos felt that the road it
is not intended to be improved based on information from the town council meeting
they attended and talking to borough manager.
Anthony Garrett presented (exhibit A1) an aerial view showing the property. He
also showed 24 photos (exhibit A2) showing the property and paper street. He
told the board of the walking trail (Red Trail) is on the north side of the
property. The property is natural terrain with slopes and standing water.
Property would easily be subdivided into two lots but has enough square footage
to be 3 although highly unlikely to get. If the road had been developed they
would not exceed the impervious coverage because the garage could be accessed
from the North Glen side. There is no evidence that the road would be
developed. He felt the front yard setback is best at 65 feet, but it creates a
hardship to the property owner. The percentage relief is minimal therefore they
are looking for 2 variances.
Tobia Ippolito gave the following testimony in answer to Mark Cohen’s question about plowing of North Glen and the right away. Mr. Ippolito stated that plowing had not occurred in the 2 years that he has lived here. There is a telephone pole blocking the road and a no bikes allowed sign as this is meant to be a walking trail.
Mark Cohen questioned the attorney: “Do we have the right to present the road as a road?” Michael Sullivan told the board that the council told the Ippolito’s it was not going to vacate the road and they should go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Anthony Garrett told the board that they walked Crestview Road and there are 3 properties with corner lots were the house and or other structures are less than the required 40 foot setback.
Chris Richter asked if driveways are permitted in the front yard. Marc Walker responded yes. Mr. Richter asked the applicant how they determined it was a hardship when you are complying with the front yard set back of 65 feet. Peter Bolo stated the hardship was due to 40 feet on the paper road. Arthur Max asked the applicant why the council did not give you the right to vacate the land. Roy Kurnos stated the town will not sell the land. The other side of the paper road is borough land. There is no reason to treat this lot as a corner lot since the road will not be developed.
Mary Dietz asked why you have to take the house down and why you can’t fit a home without a variance on this large piece of property. Tobia Ippolito stated it is my right to take the home down. He did look into the cost to repair the home which is in excess of $300,000 for basic improvements. These improvements included removing the knob and tube, repairing the foundation that is cracked, water damage and termite damage, mold and rodent infestation. Peter Bolo stated looked at the property in 1989 and confirmed the house could not be repaired. It’s value as a historic home is diminished by the changes that have made to the home over time. He asked why the applicant couldn’t build something on that large lot. The applicant stated the house has to be sideways resulting in no backyard. We want to have our house forward like the rest of the street. (Exhibit A3) He mentioned the house that he lives in now has only a 22 ft front yard setback.
Pat Rusak asked how wide the house was. The applicant told her it was 97 feet. Chris Richer asked it there was a basement proposed in design and there was. He questioned the square footage of house with basement. Tobia Ippolito explained they did not have plans yet. Mark Cohen questioned the lot coverage. He asked if the house is not designed, why the applicant could not find 780 square feet in order to be within the ordinances. Chris Richter stated that knocking down house allowed you start with a clean slate and follow all the ordinances.
Arthur Max questioned why they needed a sideline variance when you haven’t designed the house yet. Roy Kurnos stated the applicant should meet the Impervious Coverage but I felt they should not have to meet the 40 foot side variance. Chris Rickter suggested the applicant flip the house so that the driveway is on the right side of the property. They could create a very large house inside the envelope. Bob Sheasby felt the application was a personal hardship rather than actual hardship since we do not see a house plan. Michael Sullivan explained the board grants the ordinances. You can grant a side yard variance without a house design by law but some board members may need to see the house design.
Questions and statements were then asked from the public. Joan Nix, 11 Hillcrest Road, asked if there was a variance for free standing garage in the front yard. Roy Kurnos stated they were looking for a side yard variance. She also asked about noticing. The attorney stated the noticing was fine. John Grossman, 180 Morris Avenue, represented the Historic Preservation Committee. He explained the hardship is actually to the town because of the potential teardown. He told the board the history of teardowns in Mountain Lakes. Judi Wesley, 11 Crestview Road, stated she was concerned about the house size and what will eventually be put there. She was also concerned about the construction and the look of the house in the neighborhood. Karen Diemer, 2 Crestview, wanted to keep the setback at 40 feet that was currently required.
Joan Nix said she was sorry to hear about the teardown. She was also concerned about width of the house. She stated the neighbor’s house 75 foot wide. She did not see this application as a hardship.
Tobia Ippolito made the following closing statements. The town walking path is on their property. The property on the other side of the paper road is owned by the town. That prpoerty is over 200 foot wide that can be used for access. Chris Richter agreed the town should get the path moved off your property. Roy Kurnos the applicant would work within the impervious coverage requirement and remove the request from their application. He did however want to get a side yard variance. He felt the corner lot concept did apply.
Mark Cohen stated the board can’t predict the future so he was afraid to go forward with the 25 foot side yard variance. Mary Dietz felt it affected the rhythms to the current road and the board should keep the setbacks. Pia Abate thought the applicant should flip the house away from path. She would like to see the side elevation of the house. Arthur Max felt the applicant had made their point. But he did not think the board had the power to not make this a corner lot. Pat Rusak felt flipping the house would give the applicant privacy as well. Chris Rickter stated he could see their application if the lot was small. He agreed the road would not be developed. He could not see the hardship. Bob Sheasby agreed with the other board members. He did not see the hardships. Peter Bolo could see the potential hardship in the paper road. He questioned how the application affected the master plan.
Chris Rickter asked the applicant if they would like to care it rather than have the board vote. Roy Kurnos agreed to his suggestion. Chris Rickter made a motion to carry the application. It was 2nd by Mark Cohen. The applicant agreed to grant the board an extension to the June 4th meeting.
PATRICIA KACZK 86 Intervale Road
Bl.130.02, Lot 22 Appl. #09-555
Rear and Side Yard RA Zone
Mrs. Kaczk stated she currently has a patio in back and a deck on the side of her home. Photos of the actual property were included in the application. She stated that her house and driveway currently exceed the impervious coverage requirement. She planned to reduce the size of the side patio but needed a small deck on side of the house to allow egress on side from Dining Room and Kitchen doors. She would remove deck in rear of the house and replace with patio. The deck and steps have termites and need to be replaced. The patio would be flush with grade.
Mark Cohen made a motion to accept the application as presented. A second was made by Pat Rusak. The vote was 7 to 0.
Carried to June 4, 2009:
ROBERT L. KLINGENBURG 123 Lake Drive
Bl. 101, Lot 48 Appl. #09-549
Interpretation RA zone
The application was moved to June 4th meeting. A motion was made by Bob Sheasby to carry the application. A second was made by Pat Rusak. The vote was 7 to 0.
.
Other Matters / Public Comment:
The Joint Ordinance Committee Recommendations were emailed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Due to the late hour the committee representatives asked that the board reply by email any comments they had on the ordinances.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Shaw, Secretary