MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES
June 28, 2007
Chairman Mike Lightner read the Open Public Meeting Advertisement Notice: Adequate notice of this meeting was given to the Citizen and the Daily Record, was posted with the Borough Clerk and the Bulletin Board, and made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.
ROLL CALL:
Board Members Present: Nix, Dunn, Batty, Davis, Webb, Shaw, Palmer, Lightner Absent: Melikian, Pitcher, Selver
Also Present: Attorney Peter Henry, Engineer William Ryden
REVIEW OF MINUTES: The amended May 24 minutes were approved by voice vote.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
MOUNTAIN LAKES BOARD of EDUCATION Appl. #07-233
Major Soil Moving RA zone
Barbara Palmer noted that the work was started prior to June 25 (the date agreed upon during the hearing). Gary Webb said he informed the Board of Education that they started too early on the calendar and too early in the morning. Attorney Henry said we could have issued a stop work order because they should have abided by the rules. Mike Lightner pointed out the conditions on page three. Henry said this document memorializes your decision which they have violated. It would not be inappropriate for the Planning Board, when they send the resolution, to inform them that the work was not in accordance with the schedule agreed upon. Palmer said that safety and noise issues were noted by the staff and students at Wildwood School. This message will be conveyed to the Board of Education.
The motion to memorialize the Resolution was made by Steve Shaw, seconded by Louise Davis and carried by 8-0 roll call vote.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Carried from May 24:
DANIEL FERRANTE Block 99, Lots 1 & 6
2 Esplanade, 248 Morris Appl. #07-231
Major subdivision RA zone
Frank Dunn recused himself from this hearing because he lives within 200 feet of the applicant’s property.
Attorney Roy Kurnos introduced the application and described the property. The Ferrantes are seeking to create two additional lots by reconfiguring the existing two lots. Kurnos said the variances required are not major variances. Building envelope variances are required for two of the lots that have grades within the envelope in excess of 15%. The applicant has applied for a soil removal permit that would alleviate the slope variances. Kurnos introduced two witnesses: Engineer Marc G. Walker and Anthony Garrett, Planner.
Marc Walker, engineer from Dykstra, Walker, described the property. The two existing lots are 106,000 square feet, approximately 2 ½ acres, with frontage on Morris Ave., Midvale, and the Esplanade. The total property could generate 7 building lots. Approximately 67,000 square feet of the property is unconstrained. There is public water and sewer on Midvale and Morris, but not on the Esplanade. The existing home on the corner of Midvale and Morris, lot 1, has a detached garage that would be removed. The house on lot 6, on the Esplanade has two additions (a porch on the right side and a one-story addition that were added in the 90’s); both those additions would be removed under this plan to make the side setbacks comply. That is shown on sheet 3 of 7, lot layout plan.
This plan proposes to create four lots by combining and reconfiguring the existing two lots. The two new proposed lots are at the corner of Morris and Esplanade and at the lower end of the Esplanade.
There is an existing sewer lateral; we would create an easement on lot 6.01 to continue the sewer lateral. Currently there is a restriction on extending the water lines. Walker was informed by a State official that they could drill individual wells for each of these new homes. Walker speculated that they might be able to continue with their plan to extend the water lines.
Shaw asked if they would be required to connect to the Borough system in the future. Ryden said there is no ordinance requiring mandatory connection. Walker testified that he thought there would be adequate water to supply the two new residences. Gary Webb said that we would have to apply to DEP for a consent order. Sites could make application to DEP but Webb understood that would be only for temporary wells. Kurnos said that the applicant would agree that, if necessary, the homeowners would have to hook up to the Borough’s supply. Steve Shaw said that his experience has shown that drilling a well was not an avenue for introducing pollutants to the aquifer. Shaw said that anywhere in this area, you get into bedrock quickly, within approximately 20 feet; if you don’t hit a fracture, you have to dig deeper.
Exhibit A-2, dated 1/12/07, showed the boundary and topo survey.
Exhibit A-3, building box derivation plan, dated 4/27/07.
Exhibit A-4 showed a conceptual four lot conforming subdivision plan, dated 6/28/07. Walker distributed handouts of the exhibits on Exhibit A5.
Barbara Palmer asked if the frontyard average setback rule would apply to the proposed house along Midvale.
Walker described the derivation of the 50’ x 85’ building box shown in Exhibit A3. He referred to the language of the ordinance under 225-20C, noting that the purpose is to insure that you have room to create the house and allow room for activity around the house.
Walker referred to Sheet 2, proposed lot 1.01, to show that a variance is needed to fit the rectangular building box that slightly extends over the allowable envelope. The actual building envelope is 5531 square feet, 130% larger than the required 4250 square feet. Sheet 3 shows a similar exercise for proposed lot 6.01; the building envelope is 145% larger than required. There are only two corners of the rectangular 85’ x 50’ rectangle that extend beyond the lots’ allowable building envelopes.
Walker said they have obtained minor soil moving permits and have staked the area; that would eliminate the grey areas on Sheet 1 of 1. They could disturb the land to eliminate the slopes or they could receive the variances to protect the slopes from disturbance.
Walker introduced Exhibit A4, a four-lot conforming subdivision. He noted that the proposed lot 4 would need to have access from Midvale Road, cutting through the retaining wall along Midvale. The other problem would be loss of parking spaces that are used to access commercial spaces on Midvale Road. This plan would also require demolition of the existing Hapgood along the Esplanade. Ryden asked if the retaining wall is in the municipal right-of-way or part of the property in question.
Walker said that their purpose in showing this alternative is to demonstrate that the proposed subdivision is the preferred plan.
Board members referred to Ryden’s letter of March 22. Walker addressed the items.
#5 - we have a tree removal plan
#6 - we would comply
Ryden said that, other than the Morris County Planning Board letter, all these items could be conditions of approval.
Walker – we will address their requirements and meet their conditions. If there are other substantive requirements, we may have to return to this Board. The retention systems would be handled individually on each lot. We would have to meet the rate of runoff and recharge requirements. That could be satisfied by adding additional dry wells.
The soil erosion map, sheet 6 of 7, shows that we are substantially under the one acre of disturbance and that should satisfy the county. Lots 6 and 6.01 will have individual laterals.
The high voltage wires from the tower on Exhibit A2 do not have easements. We will request a title search to be sure there is no easement. If it exists, it will be a substantial distance from the dwelling. Walker reviewed the County Planning Board letter of March 5, 2007 and testified that they would comply with all items.
Barbara Palmer noted that the street width of the Esplanade is not conforming. Would the subdivision need to dedicate some land to meet the standards? She is concerned about emergency access because there is no turnaround on the Esplanade. Neither Ryden nor Walker knew if the Esplanade meets RSIS standards without checking the regulations. Ryden said that RSIS supersedes our ordinances. Walker offered that they could provide a K-turn on the last property; that could be deeded to the municipality.
Walker said they are not proposing curbing or any improvements other than the water line extensions.
Kurnos introduced Anthony Garrett, former Chair of the Boonton Planning Board, currently a licensed architect and planner; he has testified throughout the State. Garrett has visited the property and was accepted as an expert witness.
Garrett noted that the existing large lots are irregular in nature, created by meandering streets. There are two historic structures on the site. We are not seeking the ordinance complying plan of four lots. Our plan would remove two additions added in the 90’s. Even the smallest lot is commensurate with other lots in the area across Morris Avenue. The proposed development is congruous with the neighborhood. The proposal also would preserve the natural vegetation. Exhibit A6 was a 12 photo board of the site and immediate environs. Garrett pointed out that the area along Midvale would be preserved. Referring to B1, he pointed out the heavily wooded area and stone walls along Midvale, noting that the site development has been appropriate and meets the goals and objectives of the 1996 Master Plan by preserving two Craftsman homes.
The lot sizes all exceed the minimum size required in this zone. We meet the positive criteria for a C-1 hardship variance. The existing setback nonconformities will be eliminated. We are seeking the slope variances because we believe our proposal is a better alternative, preserving the natural contour. He characterized the building envelope variances as deminimis.
Garrett referenced case law in Montville; the denied decision on the building envelope was overturned by Mr. Weinman and upheld in the Superior Court appellate division. Garrett said he believes the variances could be granted without impairing public health, safety or welfare. There would be no detriment to the neighborhood.
Board questions: Sandy Batty – the ordinance was put in place to protect environmentally sensitive features so she questions whether the soil movement approval should be used to eliminate the slope variance requirement. Ryden pointed out that the steep slopes along Midvale are outside the building envelope. Regarding the alternative subdivision plan, we have not seen the engineering for that proposal so I don’t know if a driveway could be provided from Midvale. There would also be the possibility of an easement for a driveway off of the Esplanade.
Peter Henry asked if there was a proposal to build the two new houses in the Craftsman or compatible style. Could that be a condition of approval? The applicant agreed to that condition. There was discussion about whether the houses would need height or front setback variances along Midvale.
From the audience:
Richard Broome, 251 Morris Avenue, said he was speaking on behalf of six other residents in the neighborhood. Attorney Henry said that Broome could not speak on behalf of other residents unless he has been retained by those residents. Broome said he was not retained; he disagrees that there would be no negative effect on the neighborhood. The variances are not being sought to improve the applicant’s property; they are sought so he can build two new homes. This plan would not enhance or maintain the character of the neighborhood; it would only enhance the applicant’s own financial interest. Crowding two new homes onto the Esplanade would add traffic and would not improve the neighborhood. He asked if the variance process was intended for this use.
Margarethe Laurenzi has lived at 236 Morris Avenue since 1999. She said her husband Mark works out of town and could not return for this hearing. She read a statement. They have several concerns: the overall appearance of the neighborhood and safety. The proposed home on the corner of Morris & Esplanade is the largest concern. It would be at the highest point of the neighborhood and would tower over all other homes. The other new house would require removal of 2 or 3 significant trees. The Esplanade is only 16 feet wide. We are also concerned about the proposed development of the Midvale Market area. Laurenzi requested that the Ferrantes revisit their plan and attempt to find a different, less obtrusive way to develop their property.
Lightner asked Kurnos if he wanted to proceed prior to investigating the RSIS regarding the required road width. Kurnos said the lot sizes were large enough to provide a larger right-of-way. Walker said we could dedicate 5 feet and could install a turnaround for emergency vehicles; he said we do not have to comply with RSIS if we are not creating a new road. Ryden pointed out that there already is a driveway across the street that requires access by snowplows and emergency vehicles; this does not change anything. Webb and Lightner agreed with Ryden that creating a turnaround could present additional problems.
There was no consensus about whether the 100 foot frontage is required on more than one street, i.e. would it be required on each of the Lackawanna, Elm and Esplanade frontages? The applicant claimed that the 100 foot frontage is required on only one street. It is not clear if the park (Esplanade) is treated as a road. Kurnos said that the Esplanade is open space and is not treated as a street in any other way. Lightner said that we need resolution of this issue before we make a decision; i.e. how do we treat the frontage on the Esplanade, is it a right-of-way, street or park. We must determine if there is a deed restriction. Garrett said that it will not be developed into a street because it is open space from a planning standpoint. Henry noted that, from a legal standpoint, the Board needs to know which variances are required to grant the subdivision.
Kurnos said that the legal notice stated, “all such variances required”.
The application will be carried to review the RSIS and Esplanade Park area setback issues. Garrett said that page 6 of the Master Plan refers to it as the Esplanade Park, therefore requiring only a sideyard setback.
Sandy Batty asked for a conservation easement on the steep slopes along Midvale; Kurnos said, “Granted.”
The final decision is tabled to the July 26 meeting without further notice.
OTHER BUSINESS:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Marge Jackson, Secretary