MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

February 2, 2012

 

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 5, 2012.  Said resolution was mailed to The Citizen and The Morris County Daily Record and by filing the same with the Borough Clerk on January 9, 2012 and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.

 

 ROLL CALL:

Present: Bolo, Dietz, Max, Abate, Richter, Cohen and Gallo

Absent: Rusak

Also Present:  Attorney Michael Sullivan

 

REVIEW OF MINUTES: Peter Bolo made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 5th meeting. Chris Gallo provided the second; the minutes were approved by voice vote by all members.

 

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:  

LOREN ISENBURG & GARY PERLER                    Appl. #11-605

           

Peter Bolo made a motion to adopt the resolution of denial; Mark Cohen seconded the motion.  The resolution was passed by a vote of 5 to 0 with members voting to deny the application.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS: All Applicants and professionals were sworn in by Chair Chris Richter.

 

Carried Application:

THOMAS IZAGUIRRE                                              81 Crane Road

Blk. 115, Lot 18                                                           Appl. #12-608

FAR, Side, & ILC                                                        R-A zone

 

Deb and Thomas Izaguirre, of 81 Crane Road, would be presenting their application. Mr. Izaguirre told the Board they were interested in expanding their kitchen and adding a great room on the 1st floor. On the second floor they would be adding a closet and master bath above an old porch. They tried to follow the existing non conforming setback on the right side of the house.

Chris Richter asked the applicant why he was requesting a variance for 2% over the allowed FAR. Tom Izaguirre told the Board if they had complied with the required 17% FAR they would not have the space they would like. Plus the lot was a hardship because the corner of their lot was chopped off creating an irregular shape. Deb Izaguirre added they would like to more space to entertain and create a play area for their daughter. She said they owned the smallest Hapgood model which has a small living area.

Chris Richter thought the ILC could be lowered bringing it into compliance, by reducing the driveway area. Mr. Izaguirre said they could reduce the new patio area to comply. Peter Bolo asked what the area of the new patio was; it will be 419 sq ft. Mr. Richter pointed out the submitted plans did not include the third floor. The applicant responded they were not changing the third floor it will still consist of 1 small bath and 2 bedrooms. Mr. Richter asked if they included the 3rd floor space in the FAR calculation, yes they did.  Mary Dietz asked the applicant to explain the garage.  The garage was for storage, it was so small it would not even fit a car. Peter Bolo asked if they would be keeping the same steep pitch of the roof. Tom Izaguirre said they were trying to keep the character of the house. That was why they were doing the one story addition and keeping the same roof pitch. Mary Dietz pointed out the two windows on the third floor. Mr. Izaguirre said the windows were for ventilation for an area they were going to use as storage.  Mary Dietz explained that if the walls were over 5 ft tall they would increase the FAR calculation. Even though they may not be using the area as living space someone could do so in the future so it would need to be counted. The applicant said he could bring the roof down 2 or 3 ft on the third floor so we would comply. Mary Dietz reminded the applicant that the volume added above the master bath should be included in the FAR calculation. She then added she understood their interest in having a large family room but the Board need to make sure the massing of the house would not overwhelm the property. If the applicant’s plans were 370 sq ft smaller they would not need a variance for FAR. She supported the second floor master bath renovation but thought they needed to rethink the new living space.

Chris Richter asked what the new patio was made of; it would be either limestone or bluestone. Arthur Max commented the applicant did not have their architect with them but wondered if they discussed any other alternative floor plans with him. They had not. Michael Sullivan read the setback line definition from section 40-3 of the land use regulations. The applicant’s new patio was in the front yard setback. Tom Izaguirre said the lot shape and the two front yards made it difficult to place the patio.  Mr. Richter asked when the garage was built. It was not original to the property but very close.  Pia Abate was concerned with the size of kitchen/family room. She thought they could reduce the spacing between the island and the cabinets making the kitchen area small. She asked if they had considered putting sliders in the family room and moving the patio behind it. They could access the yard and patio straight out the back.

The chair asked if anyone from the public wanted to be heard, no one was present.

Chris Richter thought the applicant should lower the upper roof line, confirm the FAR calculations, move the patio, and establish a new side setback. A 12’ 9” setback for the house was too close to the property line even though the garage was already there. The proposed plan was more than doubling the size of the house, increasing the sq footage by 60%. The request was reasonable but maybe too large. It was suggest they reworked their plans and come back.  Peter Bolo was glad they were going to improve the house, they were on the right track but needed to scale back both house and patio. Mr. Richter suggested they look at the paving and possible reduce it so they could get their patio.

Mr. Izaguirre requested their application be carried to March 1st. Peter Bolo made a motion to accept the carry and Mary Dietz provided the second. The motion was approved by all members present.

 

New Applications:

ROBERT HOROWITZ & NANCY POLETTI             69 Tower Hill Road

Blk. 52, Lot 11                                                             Appl. #12-609

FAR, ILC, Front Setback, Height, Story                          R-AA zone

 

Marc Walker, an Engineer, and Seth Leeb an Architect, both licensed in the state of NJ and Robert Horowitz of 69 Tower Hill Rd would be presenting the application. Mr. Horowitz told the Board his family moved to town 2 years ago and were becoming part of the community.  They have purchased a Hapgood that needs a lot of work. Previously they owned and renovated a 100 year old house and would like to do so again.

Seth Leeb explained the home was an original Hapgood that sat on a 19,999 sq ft lot rather than the 22,500 sq ft required in the zone. They were looking to remove the enclosed sunroom, the current entrance, and put on a new front entrance on the street side. They would be removing the existing covered porch and relocating the kitchen to the rear of the house plus adding a family room.  A two car garage would be added with a covered porch and terrace above. Two baths would be added on the second floor and the third floor would be rearranged to create a master suite. The existing the garage will be used as a shed. He went on to say the lot created a hardship because it was undersized and only 96.5’ wide on Tower Hill Rd. The property slopes down on two sides creating the need for a variances for the number of stories.

Exhibit A-1 was a series of 7 photos of the existing house from different locations on the lot. The house counts as 3 stories on two sides of the home because the basement counts as a story. Pia Abate confirmed the original front of the house was on the right side. Chris Richter pointed out the applicant had calculated the front as having 3 stories when it should be 2 ˝ in the front so they would not need a variance for the stories in the front. The north (left side) would be 2 ˝ not 3 and the rear and right hand side (south and east) would be 3 ˝ stories rather than 4. They would only need a variance for the rear and right side.  After discussing the definition of a half story the applicant amended his application to reflect the change.  Marc Walker added the proposed new structure was down hill due to the sloping off of the property increasing the average grade plane. The applicant was not changing the grade around the house. 

Seth Leeb explained the height variances required. The existing non-conforming front elevation height was 36.37 ft. The average of the other three sides of the house was 42.25 ft where 38 ft was the maximum allowed.  No matter where they place the addition they would create a height issue.  Exhibit A-2 was a colorized version of V-2 already submitted. It showed the existing and proposed floor plans for the house. The newly colored version highlighted the areas of the house they were removing.  Removing the front sunroom improved the front setback. The proposing kitchen would be located in the rear of the house. The covered porch and terrace would be over the two car garage. On the second floor they were adding two baths. On the third floor they were rearranging the floor plan. Before the proposed renovation the basement did not count but does now with the new garage. Seth Leeb reviewed the elevations for the Board. Due to the sloping lot you only see half the garages from the street. He then presented exhibit A-3 consisting of a photo of the lot and a rendering showing what the structure would look like on the lot after it was built. The existing large trees block much of the front of the home from the street. Exhibit A-4 was also a photo of the current house and a proposed rendering of the front of the house from a different point on the street.

Seth Leeb said the applicant needed a variance for a front yard setback. Currently it was 33.8 ft after the renovation it would be 40.2 ft where 43.5 was required.  The current FAR is 16.7% but the proposed changes would increase it to 29.2 % due to the undersized lot.  The applicant only wished to increase the house by 226 sq ft. The drastic increase in FAR was because the basement counted. The FAR would only be 17.8% without the basement. The ILC allowed on this lot is 20%. Currently it is 32.1% but by taking up the driveway, the bluestone patio, miscellaneous steps and portions of the house we are reducing the ILC to 29.6%. Mr. Leeb added it was not an easy property to work with due to the sloping and being undersized. Due to the sloping pitch they need to make sure they kept the water run off on the property. The new garage was 80 ft. from the neighbor’s house.

Mary Dietz asked how they determined the front yard setback. They averaged the distance of one house at a 67 ft front setback and the other setback at 20 ft. 

Marc Walker wanted to address the concerns brought up in the letter from the Borough Engineer, Bill Ryden. The proposed plan was improving the front and side yard setbacks as well as decreased the coverage. The applicant was only looking to increase the living space 226 sq ft. We could propose a retaining wall system to take the basement out of the calculation (on back and south side). Arthur Max commented the retaining wall would take the place of the basement wall. Mr. Walker continued on sheet V-3 they were not adding height to the house and the new terrace was only one story. Item #4 of Mr. Ryden’s letter mentioned an inadequate building envelope. Michael Sullivan said this requirement did not apply to a building addition. It only applied when we have a new lot or a house has been knocked down. Item #5 concerned obtaining a soil moving permit. The applicant would only be removing 172 cubic yards which only required an approval from Mr. Ryden to do so. Item #6 the roof leaders would be installing by the applicant. They would make sure the water from the leaders would drain out to the street and not onto the neighbor’s property. In item #7 Mr. Ryden requested the Board discuss the removal of the walls on the neighbor’s property.  One wall is on Borough land. Chris Richter suggested when the applicant removed the driveway they could remove the wall. Seth Leeb said the property owner would remove the wall on the Borough property but wanted to keep part of the wall due to the dramatic drop off.  The detached garage would be used as a shed. The green house was not original to the property but was very old. It was low to the ground and required you to walk down into it.

The Chair asked if there were any questions from the Board. Peter Bolo questioned the covered porch and chimney. Why was this needed and it certainly was not a typical covered porch. He thought the porch was very large and its mass was big.  Seth Leeb pointed out the total of all the proposed cover porches was less than 500 sq ft. The house has a covered porch now; they would be removing it and would like to replace it with one over the garage. Dr. Bolo added from the street the covered porch looked like it was enclosed. Mr. Leeb said the new porch was smaller in length and bit wider so it will be more functional. Peter Bolo said he would prefer to see a terrace that was not covered. Mary Dietz asked if you could get both cars in the garage. Mr. Leeb said you can do a K turn to get out. Mark Walker said there was plenty of room to get the car in and out. Chris Richter asked if the lot was conforming what would be the FAR be. If the lot was 22,500 sq ft you would still require an FAR variance. It would be 14.8% without the basement and 25.5% with.

Mr. Richter asked if there were any questions from the public. Martha Dwyer Bergman, of 61 Tower Hill was concerned about run off. For years the south side of her front yard always flooded.  The town has finally fixed the drainage with the new catch basins. She questioned how the new addition would affect the drainage. She also felt she would be able to see the new patio.  Marc Walker said the drainage being installed for the driveway would pitch to the roadway. They could add curbing to ensure that. The plan presented would reduce the drainage onto her property.  Seth Leeb showed Ms. Bergman exhibit A-3 and 4 to help her understand the view from the road. Today she sees 8 ft of the basement after the renovation she would see approximately 11 ft. of the garage. Chris Richter suggested the applicant add shrubs along the exposed wall of the garage. Marc Walker said they could add a landscape plan to break up the view. Chris Richter asked Mr. Walker if the applicant could re-grade the area without retaining walls. Mr. Walker said they could re-grade to soften the corner of the new addition and continue the 3 ft wall along the driveway to the back of the house filling the area in with landscaping.

The Chair asked for comments from the Board. Arthur Max asked Mr. Leeb to explain were the additional sq ft. was going. He responded it was being reallocating around the house. Mark Cohen said requesting 30% FAR with the basement that counts was too much for him. Pia Abate asked if they had considered putting the garages in the front of the house. Mr. Leeb said that would decrease the front yard setback. She asked about other locations.  The architect said they considered putting them under the house but that required digging out the basement floor and the neighbor would be looking at the garage doors. Placing them in the back would increase the ILC. Chris Gallo asked if they consider a one car garage, no they had not. Peter Bolo said he thought the covered porch added volume to the house but had no problems with the additions.  Chris Richter thought the house modifications were fine. He felt this was a good application but the southern exposure was great and that was a concern. Mary Dietz asked if they considered cutting the garage in half and having one car garage that was partially covered. Pia Abate supported the application but was concerned with the view form the south.

Michael Sullivan said Ms. Bergman, of 61 Tower Hill Road, had a comment. She would like the wall on her property to be retained.

Seth Leeb asked for a 5 minute break to speak to his client. Upon returning the applicant said they would like to remove the outdoor stone chimney from the porch area. They would cut back the porch by turning the covered area. They would still have a two car garage but would only have the cover porch over one bay. Exhibit A-5 a drawing of this change was created by drawing on Exhibit A-2. Mary Dietz said the southern elevation still had grading issues.  Marc Walker said the applicant would submit a landscape plan to the Borough Engineer. Chris Richter said the Board wanted to make it part of the resolution. Mr. Walker said the plan would consist of two 6 foot Norway spruce, 15 ft on center, on either side of an existing cedar tree along the property line. They also need to adjust the grading along the basement wall and add foundation plantings at least 3 ft tall.

Mr. Sullivan reviewed the resolution conditions. The applicant would change the grading and add landscaping around the basement, the stone chimney on the patio would be removed, the covered porch and terrace would be reoriented, the pitch of the driveway will be such that the run off goes into the street, conditions 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 of Mr. Ryden’s letter will be met and, the wall will be removed from Borough property. Peter Bolo made a motion to accept the applications with the conditions listed by Mr. Sullivan. Pia Abate seconded the motion. The Board voted 6 – 1 to approve the application with members Richter, Bolo, Dietz, Max, Abate and Gallo voting in favor.  Mr. Cohen voted against the application.

 

Other Matters / Public Comment:

 

Stephen Shaw introduced himself to the Board as their Council liaison.  

 

Chris Richter made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mark Cohen provided the second. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 pm. 

                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

           

 

                                                                                                            Cynthia Shaw, Secretary