MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

July 11, 2013

 

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, 2013.  Said resolution was mailed to The Citizen and The Morris County Daily Record and by filing the same with the Borough Clerk on January 7, 2013 and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.

 

Start: 7: 31 pm

 ROLL CALL:

Present: Richter, Albergo, Bolo, Rusak, Dietz and Mc Connell

Absent: Abate and Max

Also Present:  Attorney Michael Sullivan

 

REVIEW OF MINUTES: Pat Rusak made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 6, 2013 meeting. William Albergo provided the second; the minutes were approved by voice vote by all members.

 

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:

ERIC & TARA STRUASS                                           Appl. # 13-626

Mary Dietz made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval; Pat Rusak seconded the motion.  The resolution was passed by a vote of 4 to 0 with members Richter, Albergo, Dietz and Rusak voting to approve the application.

 

STEPHEN & KAREN CAROLONZA                         Appl. #13-628

William Albergo made a motion to adopt the resolution of approval; Mary Dietz seconded the motion.  The resolution was passed by a vote of 5 to 0 with members Richter, Bolo, Albergo, Dietz and Rusak voting to approve the application.

 

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

Carried Application:

            DOUGLAS WALLER                                                      351 Morris Avenue

Blk. 103, Lot 1                                                     Appl. # 13-627

Front, FAR                                                                      R-A zone

 

Michael Sullivan reminded Mr. Waller this hearing was a continuation of the previous meeting and he need 5 board members to vote in favor of his FAR variance to receive approval. Even thought the Board only had 6 members present the applicant wanted to proceed.

Doug Waller explained the changes made to the project. He had removed the dormer in the rear of the home and the spiral staircase from the second floor hallway to the attic. They have included sheet A-103 the attic floor plan that was not included in the last submission. The attic sheet showed the area was 481.7 sq ft well below the 40% allowed. As requested he had realigned the driveway. Chris Richter asked if the ILC had changed because of the driveway realignment. Doug Waller said it had but he was not sure how much the reduction was. With the changes mentioned above the requested FAR and front yard setback variances remained the same. Peter Bolo confirmed removing the dormer and staircase did effect the FAR calculation so they were still requesting 17.7% where 17% was allowed. Mr. Waller explained their furniture would not fit in the Master Bedroom at a FAR of 17%. Mary Dietz explained the applicant could take 2 ft off the back of the house to be at 17% thereby complying. The change would result in 70 sq ft less on each floor (140 sq ft) right now they are over 132.

Chairman Richter explained the Board can not grant the variance just because you make the request. Mary Dietz suggested Mr. Waller could change the right wall of the bedroom and reduce the size of the master bedroom; he would then meet FAR and not need a variance. She continued the house is a complete redo and hoped they would consider changing the FAR to meet the allowed amount.

Peter Bolo thought the lot size was a hardship and the house was not large for the community.  Michael Sullivan reminded the Board a C variance could be a hardship. For a D variance the applicant is not required to prove a hardship but does have to prove the changes to their property will benefit the community and the site will accommodate the additional FAR. Under the Municipal Land Use Law General Provisions the most commonly cited reasons for granting a variance are to promote the general welfare, to provide adequate light, air and open space, and to provide sufficient space for residential use. He concluded an applicant can request an increase in FAR if it does not hurt the zone plan. Peter Bolo, Pat Rusak and William Albergo were fine with the FAR request.

No one from the public was present to comment on the application.

Chris Richter said the FAR requirements are in place to control the mass of the house. He added the applicant could have cited the preservation of an historical structure as a reason for allowing the D variance. Pat Rusak thought the applicant was keeping some features of the original house. Doug Waller repeated he wanted to keep the style of the original Belhall home.

Peter Bolo made a motion to approve the application For a FAR and front setback variances and William Albergo provided the second. The application was denied 3 -2 with members Bolo, Albergo, and Rusak voting in favor, Dietz and McConnell voting against and Richter abstaining.

Chris Richter made a motion to approve the front yard setback and Mary Dietz provided the second. The front yard setback was approved 6 – 0 with members Richter, Albergo, Rusak, Dietz, Bolo and McConnell voting in favor.

Chairmen Richter explained to Mr. Waller he could have his architect bring the FAR calculation in compliance and build the house.

 

New Applications:

CAROL & BRANDON HOWARD                              47 Condit Road

Blk. 51, Lot 4                                                                Appl. #13-629

Side, Rear, ILC, FAR, Height                                         R-AA zone

 

Kim Hurley and Cesar Padilla, both licensed Architects in the state of New Jersey, and Carol Howard of 415 Myrtle Ave Fort Lee, NJ would be presenting the application this evening.  The Howards would be applying under the new historic preservation ordinance. To make it easier for the Board to review the application exhibit A-1, consisting of 4 sheets, was submitted showing existing and proposed drawings of the 1st floor plan and the various elevations. Exhibit A-2 was a copy of the 1912 photo of the house on the Historic Preservation Committee web site. Exhibit A-3 was an older photo of the home during construction.

Carol Howard shared this was her family’s 1st home in Mountain Lakes and they want to make it right. They like old homes but as they have done work they keep finding more things to repair so they have not moved into the house yet. Kim and Cesar have been working together to keep the best part of the house and make it more comfortable and usable. We would like to make it more airy and light while keeping the historical features. 

Michael Sullivan asked the applicant if she understand we only have 6 members present this evening not 7. She needed 5 positive votes for a FAR approval. Mrs. Howard understood and wanted to proceed.

Exhibit A-4 was a colorized version of sheet A-1, exhibit A-5 was a colorized version of sheet A-2 and exhibit A-6 was the site plan colorized. Exhibit A-7 was a photo board consisting of 5 photos of the carriage house and garage. Exhibit A-8 was a photo board consisting of 5 photos of house. Cesar Padilla walked the Board through the existing house. He explained they were bumping out the back of kitchen and adding a breakfast area behind the living room. This allowed them to connect the existing family room to the kitchen creating a circular flow through the house.  One the left the old porch would become a small mud room and a new covered porch connects to the back patio. They are trying to make the odd shaped family room with a fireplace more functional.  The existing garage has a flat roof and they wanted to create a better roof line to match the existing home and carriage house. Unfortunately that did not work with the two car garage. To match the roof on the house would create a narrow garage so they expanded it to a 3 car garage. Mary Dietz asked the applicant if they considered a large 2 car garage rather than a small 3 car garage. Mr. Padilla said it was not possible when doing a gambrel roof. She continued the additions to the house were not massive when considering the size of the property and house.

Kim Hurley explained she had joined the project once the addition was already designed.  She reviewed the plans and removed a lot of what they had planned. She pointed out to the Board, if the applicant did not do anything they were at the FAR limit even with the additional relief granted under the new ordinance. The existing driveway was original as is the carriage house. Under the new historical preservation ordinance any changes to the front of the house must be setback 12 “. The applicant would prefer to make it flush which would not meet the ordinance. We wanted the garage roof to match the other two roofs, adding the third bay makes the garage looked similar to carriage house. We are trying to maintain and keep the historic features of the home. Chris Richter asked what was happening on the second and third floors; nothing was happening. The mud room on the left is over the existing patio and they are covering and enlarged the old patio off the family room to the right. The original open air porches the house had do not exist today. The existing kitchen has been squared off. Mary Dietz suggested the homeowner could have enlarged the kitchen without going back so far.

Chairmen Richter told Mrs. Howard the Board was struggling with a home that will become 9100 sq ft. He then asked about the carriage house stairs. Kim Hurley explained the structure does not have egress windows on the second floor, the only way out is through an existing door. The Howards had to remove old staircase because it was rotted. Once you take down anything you have to replace it to code doing so creates the need for a rear and side setback variance. Chris Richer asked if they could just put in egress window. Since the building was historic they just wanted to use the existing door. Kim Hurley did have other options for the stair placement; she presented exhibit A-9 showing said options. The applicant agreed to reverse the direction of the stair maintaining the rear setback at 11.7’ and removing the need for a side setback variance.

Peter Bolo thought the ILC was high; the paved sports court behind garage could be remove to bring it down. He continued there was a lot of excess coverage in the sports court. Mary Dietz thought the ILC was a hardship especially with the driveway being historic. The sports court represented 883 sq ft. of coverage. Dr. Bolo told the applicant he could not support the covered porch on the right, the third garage bay and second story of the garage. Chris Richter asked the applicant to think about if they could cut back the ILC to 24%. The additions to the house made sense to him but the out buildings really increase the percentages. The proposed covered porch could be reduced in size. Mary Dietz added the garage roof line created mass and height she thought they should try to remove the variances on the accessory structure. She had no problems with the house. 

No one from the public was present to speak on the application.

Kim Hurley said the Howards would like to carry the application.  They will look at realigning the steps, removing the sports court and taking 8 ft off the garage to bring the ILC down, that will also bring down the FAR 449 sq ft. The 1249 sq ft carriage house really hurts them as does the ceilings over 9 ft in the house. The space over garage would reduce by half but they still would like to put a gambrel roof on it.  They also wanted to consider making the front of the family room flush with the original house. Michael Sullivan explained if the front of the new addition was not setback 12” they would loose the right to us the Historic Preservation ordinance

A motion was made by Mary Dietz to carry the application and a second was provided by Pat Rusak. The carry was approved 6 – 0 with members Richter, Albergo, Rusak, Dietz, Bolo and McConnell voting in favor.

 

Other Matters / Public Comment:

The Administrator said a lot of applicants were submitting their plans on 11” x 17” paper she asked if the Board preferred this option. They said they preferred a real set of plans.

Packets were handled out for the next meeting since the Administrator would be on vacation.  The minutes and resolutions from this meeting would be forwarded by email upon her return.

We still need one new alternate.

 

Mary Dietz made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Peter Bolo provided the second. The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 pm.                             

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                            Cynthia Shaw, Secretary