MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

July 7, 2011

 

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 6, 2011.  Said resolution was mailed to The Citizen and The Morris County Daily Record and by filing the same with the Borough Clerk on January 10, 2011 and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.

 

 ROLL CALL:

Present: Bolo, Max, Willke, Richter, Cohen, Gallo, Rusak and Abate

Absent: Dietz

Also Present:  Attorney Michael Sullivan

 

REVIEW OF MINUTES: Arthur Max made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 2nd meeting with a correction.  Mark Cohen provided the second; the minutes were approved by voice vote by all members.

 

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:

ANTHONY & ELIZABETH FESTA                Appl. #11-592

 

Chris Richter made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval; Tim Willke seconded the motion.  The resolution was passed by a vote of 6 to 0 with members Bolo, Richter, Cohen, Max, Gallo and Willke voting in favor.

 

MARY BREITWEISER                                  Appl. #11-593

 

Chris Gallo made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval; Chris Richter seconded the motion.  The resolution was passed by a vote of 5 to 0 with members Richter, Cohen, Max, Gallo and Willke voting in favor.

 

DOUGLAS & CAROL KENNEDY                App. #11-595

 

 Tim Willke made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval; Mark Cohen seconded the motion.  The resolution was passed by a vote of 5 to 0 with members Bolo, Richter, Cohen, Gallo, and Willke voting in favor.

 

RICHARD J. TKACH                                                  Appl. #11-587  

 

Chris Richter made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval; Chris Richter seconded the motion.  The resolution was passed by a vote of 1 to 0 with member Richter voting in favor.

 

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

 

  Carried from June 2nd:            

THOMAS & CHRISTINA PIROLO                           38 Ball Road

Bl. 97, Lot 11.02                                                          App. #11-594

Side Yard                                                                    R-A Zone

 

The Board Secretary received a request from the Applicant to withdraw their application before the Board. A motion was made by Tim Willke to accept the withdrawal without prejudice and a second was provided by Pat Rusak. The withdrawal was accepted by a voice vote of all members present.

 

New Applications:

JENNIFER & CHRIS TERRERI                                 120 Lake Drive

Bl. 102, Lot 62                                                             Appl. #11-596

ILC                                                                             R-A Zone

 

Chris Terreri, of 120 Lake Drive, presented his application to the Board for a variance for ILC.  His family has lived in the house for 1 year. During that time they have tried to figure out the best way to use the existing gravel driveway.  They have decided they would like to pave it. The applicant presented Exhibit A-1 a photo of the rock wall at the entrance of his driveway that blocked the view of on coming traffic. For safety reasons they would like to create a front turn around area to enable people to pull out forward.

Next Mr. Terreri presented Exhibit A-2, a photo board that consisted of a series of photos and a colorized version of site plan. The exhibit showed the view of the driveway from several points on the property. Exhibit A-3 was a photo of a large tree located in the middle of the driveway. Mr. Terreri explained the big tree created difficulty getting in an out of the garage.  Exhibit A -4 was a photo of the right side of the one car garage. The applicant was looking to reduce the size of the gravel driveway.  The ILC is currently 45.67% and would be going down to 37.94% once they pave the driveway.

Chris Richter asked if there were any prior resolutions on the property, there were none. He then asked if the existing garage was usable, yes it was.  Peter Bolo confirmed the Garage was for one car. He asked the applicant if he needed the additional parking area in the rear of the lot. Chris Terreri explained the back parking area was a turn around for the garage and a parking area for the second car.  Peter Bolo established there was a hardship present because of the placement of the garage.

Peter Bolo asked if there were any questions from public, there were none.

A motion was made by Pia Abate to approve the application presented and a second was provided by Arthur Max. The application was approved by a vote of 7 – 0 with members Bolo, Richter, Cohen, Max, Rusak, Abate, and Gallo voting in favor.

 

DOUG & MELISA ALBREGTS                                 95 Hanover Road

Bl. 73, Lot 1                                                                Appl. # 11-597

Front Yard                                                                  R-A Zone

 

Doug and Melisa Albregts, of 95 Hanover Road, presented their application. Melisa Albregts explained the house was a Hapgood with an original porch. They would like to keep the porch, remove the railing and replace it with a roof, columns and screening. Mrs. Albregts presented the elevation drawings in the application. The current porch is 30 ft from the property line and 40 ft is required because they are a corner lot with 2 fronts.  Peter Bolo established the bay window was not in the porch area and confirmed the applicant wanted to improve the utility of the porch. Melisa Albregts said they wanted to have a screened porch like they had in their last home.

Pat Rusak asked the applicant if they knew how far away the neighbors were. The applicant did not know. Pat Rusak then presented a photo of the original house which became Exhibit B-1. Chris Richter pointed out the front section of the porch on the original house had been enclosed at an earlier time. He had visited the property and noticed heavy landscaping in the area. He confirmed the applicant would be matching the existing setback. Pia Abate asked what the current foundation was made of. It is concrete and stone. Arthur Max asked what the height of the concrete patio currently was; it is 3 to 4 ft. high. Chris Richter asked about the structure that stuck out on the Beechway Road side of the house. The 2 ½ ft. structure was a bay window, our zoning allows for a projection of 3 ft., section 245-20 G (3). Michael Sullivan confirmed this patio would be considered part of the house. He then asked what the sq ft of enclosed porch would be. They would only be screening 316 sq ft. of the porch. If the front covered porch was included the applicant would be under 500 sq ft. limit for covered porches. Chris Richter asked if there were any other covered porches on the home, there were none. Peter Bolo asked the applicant if they understand they could not enclose the porch.  They responded that they understood.

Arthur Max made a motion to accept the application as presented and a second was provided by Chris Gallo.  The Board approved the application by a vote of 7 -0 with members Bolo, Richter, Cohen, Max, Rusak, Abate, and Gallo voting in favor.

 

MEGAN DUFFY & CHAPMAN RICHARDSON      63 Ball Road

Bl. 102, lot 38.02                                                          Appl. #11-598

FAR, ILC, (2) Front, Side, Height                                 R-A Zone

 

Megan Duffy, of 63 Ball Road, and Larry Korinda a licensed Architect in the state of NJ presented the application. Mr. Korinda explained they were looking for 6 variances. All the variances were existing non-conforming variances.  Of the 6, three of the variances would be reduced and/or improving. Exhibit A-1 was a colorized version of Marc Walker’s site plan dated 5/24/11 already submitted.  Mr. Korinda requested the application be amended changing the FAR to 23.99% rather than 23.6% as listed. He then went on to explain all the setback variances. The Midvale Road front variance and the side variance would be improved. Exhibit A-2 was a copy of the tax map. The map showed the location of the lot. It was on the corner and at 13,625 sq ft was the smallest lot in the area. Peter Bolo asked when the original house was constructed. Megan Duffy told the Board it was in 1915.  

Exhibit A-3 was a display board consisting of 5 photos of the existing house from several angles and the site plan. The new house plan eliminates the current roof and changes the roof to a hip roof.  The front setback of the two neighbors to the left determines the average front setback for this house. The required average front yard setback on Ball Road is 66.3 ft. The applicant would be adding a garage and with open air porch above. The house address is 63 Ball Road and the applicant would like to change the front door of the house back to Ball Road. The will remove the canopy and steps on the Midvale side. By moving the front door to Ball Road they will be changing the Midvale front yard setback to 30.7’ rather than 27.5’.

Mr. Korinda said the applicant would be removing the back walkways and patio to reduce the ILC from 33.8% to 29.3%. Chris Richter asked if any of the front landscaping would be removed. Some of the existing landscaping will be removed. Exhibit A – 4 and 5 were photos that showed the front landscaping on both Ball Road and Midvale Road. The neighbor’s houses on Ball Road sit up on a hill. The applicant would be enlarging the driveway turn around so people can pull out forward. 

Exhibit A-6 was the basement plan colorized. The applicant would be adding a full car bay with a 364 sq ft open air porch on the 1st floor. A new laundry, pantry and mud room would be created on the 1st floor by rearranging the existing space. The FAR variance is required because the volume of the dormer in the attic creates the increase in FAR. There is no additional square foot change in the floor plan being presented.  The total attic square footage is less than 40% of the second floor. Exhibit A-7 was a colorized version of the elevations. The Architect explained they would be removing the chimney that goes into the kitchen because it was non-functioning. The height of the house was being softened by the hip roof and the variance requested was not due to the height of the house changing but rather due to the footprint of the tabulated area. By moving the front door to Ball Road parking in the front of the house would be safer. 

Pia Abate asked if the arches on the front elevations were recessed, yes they were. Chris Richter asked if the applicant would remove the curb cut when they fix the driveway. Chapman Richardson, of 63 Ball Road, said the driveway, walkway and pad are all asphalt. The applicant agreed to remove the driveway entrance from the street to the walkway. Chris Richter also mentioned that the new driveway did not have the 2.5 ft pervious buffer the new ordinance requires. The proposed width of the driveway is 29 ft out of the garage. He suggested moving the walkway over 2 ft and the driveway over 2 ft to create the buffer. The wall along the property line could stay and they could put in plantings in the 2 ft area. Mark Cohen asked how the FAR stayed the same when they applicant was adding over 220 sq ft. in the attic.  Larry Korinda explained it was because it was only 40 % of the floor below so the 220 sq ft did not count when calculating the FAR. Tim Willke confirmed the brick patio was being removed and replaced with a 20 ft. deck off the ground. That was correct. Exhibit A-8 a photo showing the existing patio was introduced. Chris Gallo asked if the deck could be moved back closer to the house. Mr. Korinda thought the applicant would like to keep all the deck area because they were losing 2 patio areas.

There was no one from the public present to ask questions.

Michael Sullivan reviewed the proposed conditions of the resolution.  The driveway would be removed and replaced with grass. The applicant would move the new driveway 2 ft in from the property line and may have to realign the walkway to create a buffer. Mark Cohen thought a lot of structure was being added to a small lot. Chris Richter agreed it was a tight lot but liked the changes. Peter Bolo liked the functional improvements.  He thought the plan was more aesthetically appealing and liked the front door changing back to Ball Rd Pia Abate liked the improvements to the Midvale Rd side.

Chris Richter made a motion to approve application with the 2 conditions sited by Mr. Sullivan. Pat Rusak provided the second.  The Board approved the application by a vote of 5 -2 with members Bolo, Richter, Rusak, Abate, and Gallo voting in favor. Cohen and Max voted against the application.

 

Other Matters / Public Comment:

 

Peter Bolo asked if there were any comments from the public, none present.

 

The Board is working on a new application for zoning variances. They will hold the review of the proposed application changes to next meeting.

 

Mark Cohen made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Pat Rusak provided the second. The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 pm.                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

           

 

                                                                                    Cynthia Shaw, Secretary