MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD
OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES
June 26, 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, 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: Selver, Nachshen, Loveys (arr. 7:35), Dunn, Batty, Davis, Tempesta, Shaw, Palmer, Lightner Absent: Nix
Also Present: Attorney Peter Henry, Engineer William Ryden
REVIEW OF MINUTES: The minutes of the May 22, 2008 meeting were approved by voice vote.
Chair Lightner introduced and welcomed new Board member Corey Nachshen, Class IV member from the Environmental Commission.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Carried from May 22, 2008:
ROBERT C. & MARY ELLEN WAGGONER 26 Lake Drive
Block 101, Lot 105 Appl. #08-234
Minor Subdivision RA zone
The applicants’ attorney, Maryanne Brennan, said that she reviewed the application and realized that the building envelope and frontyard variances stemmed from the front yard setback exception. If there is no required adjustment for the front yard setback, then no variances are required.
Her research produced an interpretation that was heard by the Zoning Board of Adjustment in June, 2002, regarding a piece of property at the corner of Fanny Rd. and Hanover Road. Exhibit A7 included the Hagberg (Zoning Officer) memo, an excerpt from the 6/06/02 minutes and the resolution stating the decision of the Zoning Board. Brennan said that Hagberg determined that the Mountain Lakes Club is not adjacent to the subject property; they are separated by Borough property containing the canal. Therefore, the setback of the Club is not relevant to the calculation of the required front setback.
The Board questioned whether that decision is binding to this question. Attorney Henry said the decision is binding for what they decided and it may be distinguishable for this case.
Paul Selver asked how we define a block. Palmer read from the definitions. Batty said that you could also look at the setbacks of the two houses to the left (east).
Henry said that the DiMarco interpretation would tell you that there was no second building, so you wouldn’t impose a fictional setback.
Lightner said that he believes watercourses are not building lots. Brennan said that the DiMarco property is different. The second lot along Fanny Road was vacant Borough land so the front setback exception did not apply.
Brennan - as you look at Lake Drive, the adjacent property to the right (west) is Borough property. It is irrelevant whether it is a buildable lot.
Lightner – the intent of the ordinance is to maintain consistency on the street, it does not address whether or not the adjacent lots are buildable.
Brennan – the Club is not adjacent because the canal is between the subject lot and the Club. The Code is not consistent; when you look at the lake front exception, it references a neighboring house on adjacent property. “Where there are two houses on each side, on adjacent properties, the new setback distance shall be no less than the setback of a line drawn between the setbacks of the two neighboring houses….”
Lightner referred to the memo and said it is not logical that a house would be built on a canal.
Attorney Henry said, under Brennan’s argument no setback applies; it is an adjacent lot and there is no averaging. Whether that property is a canal only becomes an issue if you accept her reading of the ordinance. Palmer – because there is an empty lot on one side, why wouldn’t you use the average of the next two buildings to the left?
Batty – the ZBA DiMarco resolution refers to “only one other building preexisting on the block”; that decision does not apply here.
Brennan – the ZBA has consistently followed this interpretation in consequent hearings, not applying the front yard exception when the subject property is next to a vacant lot.
Peter Henry - if this Board agrees that variances are not required, than the subdivision will be granted. If this Board does not agree that the former decision applies, then the applicant can go to the ZBA to interpret this because they have the jurisdiction to interpret the ordinance. It is not this Board’s authority to interpret the ordinance.
Selver – the problem is that we might not agree that the previous decision applies. The ZBA did not interpret the facts in this exact situation.
Batty – in history, we have always treated a vacant lot as not being part of the averaging.
Corey Nachshen – the adjacent property is not developable, it is an entire easement, so the adjacent building to the right is the Mtn. Lakes Club.
Henry – property can be totally encumbered by easements but that doesn’t mean it is not property.
Frank Dunn – adjacent is not defined in the ordinances. Henry – the dictionary definition is still fuzzy, but I have no question in my mind that adjacent shares a common property line. If the adjacent building has to be on the adjacent lot, is the canal a lot?
Henry – you can allow the applicant to table this, go to the ZBA and get an interpretation.
Brennan – since we are losing Board members, we would probably begin the application again.
Henry - it will be carried to 9/25 without further notice, subject to the ZBA interpretation.
Mike Lightner entered his formal resignation as Chairman of the Planning Board and turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Barbara Palmer. Lightner said, “I feel good about the decisions the Board has made over the years and I am impressed with the quality of the Board members.”
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
Master Plan Reexamination – Committee Chair Barbara Palmer presented the report that the Committee prepared. She commended the Committee, noting the members’ experience and input. We will also be giving this Board the edited version of our existing Master Plan.
Palmer referred to Planner Duggan Kimball’s suggestion #1. Henry said that the Land Use Law calls for the title “Report on the Reexamination of the Borough of Mountain Lakes’ Master Plan and Development Regulations.”
Palmer reviewed the changes and noted that they neglected to include the ordinance requiring hook-up from private wells to the Borough supply when the DEP lifts its restrictions.
The next few pages are reviews of what has occurred in the past, so she suggested the Board begin by looking at Page 8.
Attorney Henry reviewed the formal requirements, i.e. notice to the County Planning Board, adjacent communities and publication of the report.
Steve Shaw commended Barbara and hoped she would take his comments as constructive. Shaw noted that, after the 80’s there was a bust, a boom and another bust; the boom has not been continuous. Shaw referred to the last sentence, “The increased density…” I don’t know if that is intended to be a positive or negative statement. I don’t consider that there has been an increase in density.
Palmer – the enlargement of individual homes, with fewer small homes, seems to have affected the character of the town. Sandy Batty suggested removing “increased density and.”
Ralph Loveys commended the overall project but suggested that density and loss of space has always occurred. There are numerous homes that are not craftsman style and the increase in density is negligible. I think the character of the community has improved but at least awareness of the character of the community has increased. Some comments here appear to suggest a degradation of the community.
Palmer – we were establishing areas where we would like to move forward. We feel that we need to take the next step because so many homes are being altered.
There was discussion as to how this evening’s comments should be communicated to the Committee. Louise pointed out that she and Barbara are moving and would no longer be on the Committee. This was the Committee’s document, but now it is the Planning Board’s responsibility to review and adopt. Batty – we have an October deadline, the Committee has done its work. Steve Shaw volunteered to work with Joan Nix to consider and incorporate changes.
Sandy Batty asked Peter Henry if there were a Sunshine Law problem with sending changes by Email. Henry – it is no problem if all the messages and replies were like a hub in a wheel and done individually.
Steve Shaw questioned the last sentence in bullet 2, re: “traditional homes”. Batty suggested that the sentence be deleted.
In Bullet 3, Shaw disagreed with the sentence claiming that natural topography is important. Batty agreed with the premise but suggested a change in wording.
Shaw said that the size of some of the walls shows that the topography was changed years ago and is no longer “natural.” There has been less encroachment onto Borough lots because there is more awareness.
Bullet 4 – Louise Davis suggested that there be more enforcement. Delete ‘slight’, replace with ‘14%’.
Wording modifications were suggested for the Circulation, Potable water, and Lake Water paragraphs. Steve will elaborate and forward alternative wording.
Historic district designation - Shaw noted that additions and new construction usually follow the Hapgood style and he attributes that to the efforts of the HPC. There is much more awareness of the history and background of the historic homes.
Ralph Loveys noted that the remaining stock of 90% of the Hapgood homes is phenomenal and attributes that to the quality of the construction materials. Given the age of these structures, it could be economically difficult to preserve the homes. He is concerned about the implication of this paragraph. He doesn’t understand why a whole paragraph was devoted to the loss of the homes. Palmer said we could restate it more neutrally.
Recreation – Frank Dunn suggested rewording of page 6 (that was a reference from the old plan) considering the result noted on page 10. The Board agreed that that the wording was appropriate.
Regarding Midvale, Shaw noted that Council had passed a resolution encouraging the private owners to develop a plan.
Water usage and Stormwater Management – Shaw suggested rewording to be technically correct. Bill Ryden will work with Steve to clarify.
Section D:
Shaw asked if you can revise various sections without a total reconstruction of the Master Plan. Henry – yes, you can revise, amend, etc. without reconstructing the entire document. If you adopt a new Master Plan, that would begin a new benchmark for the next reexamination. The only current deadline is the October requirement for the reexamination. This is a Planning Board document and sent to Council only for advice.
Corey Nachshen disagreed with the language on page 11; he noted that the Environmental Resource Inventory would cost approximately $10,000. They had a budget of only $2500 so it is not currently in progress. Palmer noted that #4 recommends an update. Re: Recommendation #1, if we agree with all the other recommendations, that suggests we do need to update the Plan.
#2 – the HPC has received a grant to adopt a new element.
#6 – in response to a question about “sustainable community element”, Louise Davis explained that it has been used in other Plans; it is the “green” concept, incorporates energy use and environmental conservation. Batty - if it is a recommendation, it should be clarified. Does it need to be its own element or could the concepts be incorporated throughout the other elements and should we just be sure all the other elements are consistent with this concept?
#8 – Palmer said there were many concerns about this subject during our discussions. For example, there are three properties on the Boulevard that have done extreme projects that are not consistent with the traditional style and indigenous vegetation. There was Board concern as to whether this should be revised, whether we wanted to regulate landscaping.
#14b - Extensive discussion ensued and resulted in elimination of the last sentence in the paragraph.
#18a – the size of house is already limited by FAR restrictions.
#18b – Batty suggested adding “and mixed use”; Shaw was concerned about the inclusion of “retaining the historic buildings”.
Sandy returned to #1 and recommended that we do update the Master Plan.
Joan Nix has agreed to continue and shepherd us through this process.
Steve Shaw was the only member who said he could not be here July 24. Barbara Palmer was not sure she could be here in July. Joe Tempesta and Peter Henry will not be here August 28.
Steve Shaw reported that the Highlands Plan is scheduled to be adopted in July. Legislation banning RCAs has passed the legislature.
OTHER MATTERS & PUBLIC COMMENTS: Rainer Mimberg has been appointed to the Planning Board. Charles Gormally will replace Louise Davis as the Council representative.
Louise Davis nominated Sandy Batty to serve as Chair of the Board, seconded by Steve Shaw and approved by voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Marge Jackson, Secretary