MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING

OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

April 24, 2008

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:

Members Present:  Nix, Dunn, Batty, Davis, Tempesta, Palmer, Lightner                                         Absent:  Shaw, Loveys, Selver

Also Present:  Attorney Peter Henry, Engineer William Ryden

REVIEW OF MINUTES:  The minutes of the February 28, 2008 meeting were approved by voice vote.

COMMITTEE REPORTS: 

Master Plan Reexamination - Chair Barbara Palmer reported that the Committee is three-quarters of the way through the process and they plan to present their report at the June Board meeting.  Palmer clarified that they are not looking at the affordable housing element because a new plan has been presented to COAH. 

The Master Plan is now 12 years old and it is obvious that there need to be changes.

Palmer noted that the June meeting will be her last on this Board because she is moving. 

Mike Lightner said he is not sure when he will resign because his house has not sold.

Barbara Palmer asked Attorney Henry if he was familiar with a Vineland suit that was brought because the Master Plan Committee had not worked with the public.  Henry said he is aware but not familiar with this case; however he doesn’t believe the Sunshine Law applies to this process.  He will pursue the question and find out.  It is possible that the make up of that group may have been a decision making body that required Sunshine Law Notice.

Facilities Committee – Joan Nix reported that the architectureal firm of Arcari Iovino was unanimously recommended for the needs and design assessment.  The Borough  expects to receive a report in July.  Joe Tempesta added that the firm has met with department heads.  The work product at the end of this stage is a needs study, schematic design and construction estimates.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Carried from January 24 to April 24, 2008:

      ROBERT C. & MARY ELLEN WAGGONER           26 Lake Drive

Bl. 101, Lot 105                                                           Appl. #08-234

Minor Subdivision                                                         RA zone

Attorney Henry said that the hearing could not proceed because the applicant had not noticed for variances.  The applicant’s Attorney Maryanne Brennan asked that the application be carried to the May 22 meeting.

Brennan said they expect to show where the houses would be located without interfering with the front or lake setback and requesting any variance relief necessary.

Henry asked if there were any wetlands or environmental considerations for Board consideration.  Engineer Ryden asked for a report prior to the hearing.

Henry noted that the plans submitted did not show that the lots would allow for building homes that would not require variance relief.  The plans did close the gap as to whether houses could be built within the building envelopes.

Brennan said that the houses shown were conceptual but we would love to have some feedback about the location.

Attorney Henry said that is a problem.  I caution you not to comment on variance relief before an actual application is filed.  Therefore, the application is carried until May 22.

Joan Nix asked for clarification – we don’t approve any particular building plans, do we?

Henry said no, we are approving building footprints.  The architecturals are not relevant.  We are asking them to show that they can build a house that meets all the bulk requirements.  We don’t want to approve a building lot that later on would require granting variances.  Or, they show you that they can build without variance relief.

Mike Lightner asked, if they show you that they could build houses that are not consistent with the Master Plan, is that acceptable?  Henry responded, the Master Plan does not deal with individual lots or houses.  They cannot create these two lots without a building envelope variance; they either have to show a hardship (inability to create the lots without variance relief) or a C2 variance where the benefits would substantially outweigh any detriment.  Joan Nix – it seems that by subdividing the property, we are creating the hardship.  Henry – if the lots are that much larger than the minimum size, you may not be creating a hardship.

Bill Ryden – if you buy a very undersize lot, you have created your own hardship.

Mike Lightner – under what circumstances could we not grant the variance?

Henry – the applicant has to weigh whether, if there is a denial, should I proceed to the courts or should I reduce my request?

The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                    Marge Jackson, Secretary