MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD

OF THE BOROUGH OF MOUNTAIN LAKES

May 22, 2014

 

Chair Jim Bailey read the Open Public Meeting Advertisement Notice adopted at the annual meeting on January 30, 2014:  Adequate notice of this meeting was given to the Citizen and the Daily Record, filed with the Borough Clerk, posted on the Bulletin Board in the Borough Hall on February 03, 2014 and made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.

 

Meeting start: 7:32 pm

 

ROLL CALL:

Members Present: Bailey, Kane, Tovo, Dagger, Lester, Nachshen, DeTertre, Russo and Happer

Members Absent: Horan and DeVenezia

Also Present: Attorney Peter Henry, Engineer Bill Ryden

 

REVIEW OF MINUTES: Martin Kane made a motion to adopt the minutes of the February 27th meeting. John Lester provided the second; the minutes were approved by voice vote of all eligible voters.

 

RESOLUTIONS: none

 

SPECIAL PRESENTATION:

                                    Mountain Lakes Board of Education       Wilkins Field

                                    Blk: 86.01, Lot 23

                                    Lighting                                                R-A Zone

 

The Mountain Lakes Board of Education was here to share the changes they planned for the lighting at Wilkins Field. Bill Ryden recused himself since he had worked on developing the plan with the Board of Education. Dan Borgo, the Business Administrator and Secretary for the Board of Education and Robert Zeoller of Musco Lighting would be making the presentation. 

Mr. Borgo explained the turf field was a million dollar asset that wears from the atmosphere not use. The Board would like to take advantage of the field’s durability by adding lighting and thereby expanding the amount of time it can be used for high school and recreational sports. Lakers Sports Club is underwriting the cost this project. Peter Henry reminded the Board of its role, this is not a site plan review and the Board of Ed is required by state statue to make this presentation. Your role is to provide comments based on your experience reviewing plans to help them with their project.

Jim Bailey asked if the Board had any questions for Musco Lighting or the Board of Education. Chairman Bailey continued he had concerns with parking and the sound due to the increased number of games. Mr. Borgo said the Board plans to use parking marshals/attendants for the games. The plan is to light the walkways to the field with most of the parking at the high school.  Bethany Russo asked if the path was already lit. No, upgrading the pathway lighting was phase 3 of the project.  James Smith, the high school Athletic Director, stated they were planning to install a new sound system in the fall to control the spillage of sound.  Martin Kane asked how late the games would run. Dan Borgo said the fields would be in use until 9 pm so they can give more time to recreation programs.  James Smith said the football games would be the exception to the 9 pm ending time since these games start at 7 pm.  Dan Happer said he was concerned the lighting on the surrounding streets was not sufficient and the roads were too narrow to allow parking on both sides. Mr. Smith said they will be hiring police to control traffic on night games. Robert Tovo said he had already spoken to Chief Bennett about this; we need to encourage people to park at the high school.

Mayor Happer asked about the spillage of light onto the neighbor’s homes. Robert Zeoller, of Musco Lighting, explained the new lights have shields to control the spread of light onto neighboring properties, the glow of light over the field and the brightness of the lights when the players looked up. Bethany Russo asked the height of the fixtures, the poles are 70 ft tall from the ground to the top of the fixture. Mr. Zoller continued, we propose a total of four poles. On the home side of the field the two poles each have 13 light fixtures and on the visitor side there are two poles with 14 lights on each pole.  One light on each side lights the track and one light on each side lights the balance of the field. Nancy DeTertre asked the life expectancy of the lights. The lamps last 5 years and are covered by the 25 year warranty.  Bethany Russo asked about lighting the food area. The proposed light poles will cover the lighting for the shack area, illuminating it at 1 to 2 foot candles, the same as a street light.

John Lester asked if they expected to see an increase in ticket sales. Mr. Borgo said attendance doubled when the field was lit for the trial night football game. He continued we plan to use that money to cover cost of police and parking marshals. The Board plans to use the field exclusively for high school and recreation sports during the 1st year; after that year they will look at third party usage.  James Smith added the athletic department plans to have all the football games at night except for homecoming. Melisa Muilenburg, President for Lakers Sports Club, said the club has raised $270,000 for the lights through donations and hoped to start the project in June with it completed by the end of July beginning of August.

There was no vote on the project since this was a courtesy review.

 

PUBLIC HEARING:

                        Jeffery and Lynne Ansell                                   260 Boulevard

                        Blk: 100, Lot: 23                                                App. #14-256

                        Minor Subdivision                                              R-A Zone

                        2 Side setbacks, 2 Height, 2 Building Envelope, Steep Slopes and Lot Width

 

Jason Rittie, a licensed Attorney in the state of New Jersey would be making the presentation for 260 Boulevard. Jeff and Lynne Ansell wished to subdivide their property; they have done the proper noticing and received approval from the Morris County Planning Board for their project. Mr. Rittie reviewed the variances requested for side setback, height, building envelope, steep slopes and lot width. He highlighted the pre-existing non-conformities on the property. Jeffery Ansell, the owner of 260 Boulevard, Michael Tobia, a licensed Planner in the state of New Jersey and Marc Walker, a licensed Engineer in the state of New Jersey would also be presenting parts of the application.

Chairmen Bailey asked about the fence located on the minor subdivision plan, the county requested the fence be removed. Mr. Rittie said the county asked it be moved out of the right of way so they are moving it onto the property since a variance was previously granted for the fence. Peter Henry pointed out the title record revealed an old deed that has a covenant stating fences are not allowed.

Jeffery Ansell said he purchased the home on the lake in 2007.  The home was built in 1913 and the family has made top to bottom renovations of the home and small guest cottage. They also have done extensive landscaping on the property. They are here tonight seeking a subdivision of the lot.

Tom Dagger asked the homeowner if they had plans to do anything else to the house. Mr. Ansell said no but we have been replacing trees lost in Sandy. Mr. Dagger asked if the historic accessory building would be removed; yes it would. John Lester asked Mr. Ansell if he considered moving the arbor rather than request the side setback variance. Mr. Ansell said they would have to remove the wisteria to move the arbor and they did not want to do so.

Chairmen Bailey opened the hearing to the public for questions. Attorney Mark Brancato would be representing the Verzaleno’s of 270 Boulevard at this hearing. He read into the record a description of the property printed in a sales brochure used by the Ansell’s when the house was on the market last year. Mr. Ansell confirmed the descriptive statement read was from the brochure.

Marc Walker prepared the subdivision plans for 260 Boulevard and was the next witness to present at the hearing. Exhibit A-1 was an existing conditions exhibit dated 5/22/14, showing an outline of the subject property, the sanitary sewer easement and existing buildings. The property is located in the R-A zone, has 200 ft of frontage and 58,000 sq ft of area. Jim Bailey asked if the island was included in the area calculation; yes it was and represents 4000 sq ft of the lot area. Mr. Walker continued in the original development plan for Mountain Lakes this property consisted of four lots with 50 ft frontage. Exhibit A-2 was a lot layout exhibit dated 5/19/2014 showing the proposed two lots, the conceptual dwelling and the recreated driveways. The existing lot would be 29,790 sq ft with 100 ft lot frontage on the Boulevard, the shortest side line is 175 ft deep and you need 150 ft, the house conforms to the average setback requirement of 52.3 ft and the existing house footprint is 2033 sq ft. The newly created lot would be 28,210 sq. ft., the frontage is 100 ft, the side line is greater than the required 150 ft, an average front setback requirement of 55.7 is met and the proposed new house is 2855 sq ft. with 12 ft wide deck.

The proposed property line has a jog in it to provide access to the island for the remaining lot and allow the new lot to have access to the lake. The existing patio & dock will go with the new lot. The northerly side setback is 16.9 ft for the existing house where 25 ft is required. They are seeking a second side setback variance of 11 ft to maintain the arbor. The existing guest cottage will be taken down eliminating the pre-existing non-conforming side setback on the new lot. The building height for the existing home is pre-existing non-conforming. The required street facing height is 2 ˝ stories and 35 ft. and the home is 2 ˝ stories 35.67 ft high requiring a variance. The non-street fronting sides are 3 ˝ stories with a height of 41.12 ft where 3 stories and 38 ft is permitted. Based on the Boroughs definitions the attic is counted as a ˝ story.

Exhibit A-3 was a copy of the subdivision plan, sheet one, dated11/05/12 and last revised on 4/4/14 to meet the changes required by the Morris County Planning Board. Mr. Walker highlighted the proposed building boxes in yellow. The building box must be free of steep slopes, meet the average front yard setback, be 50’ x 85’ ft and meet the lake front exception. The average front yard setback is created by the setback of the neighbors’ home on either side. The required average front yard setback is 55.7 ft. for the new lot, more than the required 40 ft. The lakefront exception line is drawn by connecting the homes on either side. The new lot building box is 3806 sq ft or 444 sq ft short of the required 4250 sq ft. Orange lines on the exhibit show the additional area needed to have a conforming building box on each lot.

Exhibit A-4 was an aerial view, dated 5/19/14, of the street showing the lake front exception line extended from the corner of the Verzaleno’s home, lot 27, to the last lot on the block, lot 13. The frontage of all the lots between the beach and the Lake Drive all have similar frontage and look uniform. If the lake front exception line took the entire block of homes into consideration and not just one house on either side of the new lot Mr. Walker would have been able to apply the required 85’ x 50’ building box to the new lot. Exhibit A-5 was the same aerial view of lots on the block with a sight line measured to the lake from the Verzaleno lot. The photo showed a 50’ x 97’ building box on the proposed lot. If this larger building box was extending to the sight line it still would not block the view of from 270 Boulevard. The intent of the ordinance is to give a full visual view of the lake for the neighbors so you could have a building box that goes out 97 ft toward the lake and not block the lake view. The lot widths allow for the 50 ft dimension of the box but the lakefront exception and the average front setback minimize the opportunity to place a building box 85 ft long on each lot.

Referring back to Exhibit A-3, Mr. Walker pointed out the sewer easement and the steep slopes greater than 15% in the building envelope. Exhibit A-6 was a photo of the existing house, the guest cottage and the expansive lawn area. Mr. Walker made a circle on the photo marking the steep slopes and pointing out how small the area looked. A driveway slope can be up to 15 % and lawn can be a slope of 33%. He continued the Board can see in the photo it’s a mild slope and the applicant could have modified the grades on the property without getting a soil moving permit since they would be moving less than 50 CY and there was less than a 2 ft grade change. Jim Bailey asked what the actual % of slope was in the envelope; they are very close to 15% limit.

Under the Borough ordinances the lot width should not be less than 90% of the lot frontage when they designed the project they went down to a width of 45 ft to provide access to the lake.  They will be moving the retaining wall currently located on the proposed lot back onto the existing lot. Tom Dagger asked does the 90% rule also apply to the remaining lot; the narrowest point is 54ft and 42 ft at the lake. Yes, you would need a variance for that too. Jim Bailey asked Mr. Walker why his calculation for FAR was 15.4% and the calculations prepared by Architect Seth Leeb was 16% for the remaining lot after subdivision. Mr. Walker said both calculations were under the required 17% but he would look into it. Dan Happer asked if Mr. Walker made the property line straight would you remove your access to the lake. Marc Walker said he would have to do the calculation to determine if it would create a problem for ILC but it would not prevent access.

Jason Rittie asked Mr. Walker to review Mr Ryden’s report dated 4/1/14 line by line. Marc Walker said they would comply with items 4, 8, 9, 10, and 11. A minor soil moving permit would be applied for as required in item #10 and #5 was already done. The development plan would be provided by whoever builds the home on the new lot. Peter Henry asked Jason Rittie if he was comfortable making these conditions part of the resolution, yes they were.  Mr. Ryden said he was comfortable with the answers provided by the applicant.

Chairmen Bailey opened the hearing to the public for questions of Mr. Walker. Mark Brancato confirmed the building box needed a variance for both lots. He asked Mr. Walker if he figured the FAR without the island, no he did not.  Is the Masonic Lodge closer to the water than this home, Mr. Walker said he did not know. Could you straighten the proposed lot line?  Mr. Walker said they would have to remove parts of the driveway and the arbor to do so. The new development will not alter the side setback to the north or the remaining lot; that is correct. Why are the driveways depicted not circular?  Both lots could have circular drives there is plenty of area for them. Could the new home have a front load garage? That would be determined later. Could you do rear loading garage, yes. The existing house has side loading garage.

The third witness for the application was Michael Tobia, a licensed Planner and Consultant in the state of NJ. Jason Rittie asked Mr. Tobia why the Board should grant these variances and subdivision. Mr Tobia presented exhibit A-7 a photo board of the rear of the home and arbor. The arbor, 11 ft of the property line, is a wall less and roofless structure obscured by foliage so there is no massing. The retaining wall on the left would be demolished and moved off the new property and onto the existing. Exhibit A-8 was a photo of the property left of exhibit A-7 showing the proposed building lot and the guest quarters. Mr. Tobia explained the proposed side yard setback would be about where the back of the accessory structure is now. There is a nice evergreen buffer on the property line that would not be removed. Tom Dagger asked if the maintenance of the buffer could be a condition of the subdivision.  Exhibit A-9 was the same as exhibit A-8 zoomed in on guest quarters.  This photo represented a rough approximation of the side line for the new conforming home. In the photo you could see the Verzaleno property and the buffer located on the Ansell property. Exhibit A-10 was the view of the lake from the 1st floor deck of the Ansell home. In it you can see the Verzaleno home and a portion of the guest house. He pointed out the location of the building box which is relatively flat and buildable. Mr. Tobia concluded the building envelope of the new lot is void of trees and plants. Disturbance to construction the new house would be held to a minimum with only 1 to 2 trees coming down.

Mr. Tobia said Marc Walker had explained Mountain Lakes was a planned community based on 50 foot wide lots.  It was his feeling that most of variances required for the existing home are conditions that predate our zoning law. The setback variance required for the northern side of the remaining lot was a long standing condition since the side porch is original.   The only way to eliminate this variance would be to move the house or take off part of it. He thought this was a good example of the need to grant a variance.  That was the same situation with the height. The gables, which create visual interest, would have to be removed to meet the required height limits. The arbor is a circular layout, you would have to remove a third of the arbor to comply. The age of the arbor was unknown but the wisteria has been there for a long time.

Mr. Tobia moved on to exhibit A-6 to discuss steep slopes which can create stormwater management issues if not handled properly but could also provide visual interest. The steep slopes are fractionally over 15%, they are located in the grass area of the lot and the public cannot view them from the Boulevard.  Soil erosion control and stormwater management on the new lot would be done under modern conditions.  Strict interpretation of steep slopes would not allow a home to be built anywhere on the lot and creates a hardship. John Lester asked what the grade change from the front of the building box to the back of it was. Mr. Walker said the change would be 8 ft. Mr. Tobia added the gradual slope of the property in this area was needed to create the lake.

Mr. Tobia said the definition of a building box is to provide sufficient area for the reasonable construction of a home. The new building box meets all setbacks, the lakefront exception and the average front setback, is not in flood plane and doesn’t disturb wetlands. The building envelope is flat, dry and without trees. You can build a 2800 sq ft home in the box. The envelope is shortened on the lakeside by 15 ft. This zone has a 15000 sq ft minimum for lot size. The original lot once subdivided is 91% larger than required and the new lot is 96% large than the required size. Exhibit A-11 was a photo of existing residence looking north. Mr. Tobia testified the applicant needed a variance for the building box required on the remaining lot due to the lake front exception but the box has no slopes. The existing home is 4500 sq ft. When looking at the lot width you want it to be wide through the vital part of the building box. On remainder lot 23 you have the benefits of water front access and the use of the peninsula. And the new lot has lake front access. The variances requested are classified a C-1 hardship due to the shape of the lot at the water. He continued it meets C-2 hardship criteria a: the appropriate use of land and promotes the general welfare, the subdivision is consistent with the neighborhood because it maintains 100ft lots on the block, criteria i: promotes a visual environment by maintaining the trees and other landscaping and criteria m: more efficient use of land. This project is not a substantial detriment to the public good or a substantial detriment to our zone plan and is a permitted use in the R-A zone. Lot size is easily met, setbacks, ILC and FAR are met, and the new home cannot be built in any way that would ruin the view of the lake for the surrounding lots. Mr. Tobia suggested a 2 year condition to maintain the vegetation buffer.

Tom Dagger asked about the destruction of an historic structure on the lot. Mr. Tobia said this is a garage that was converted to guest quarters and we are not sure when it was built on the lot. Mr. Dagger said he would like to look up the garage and see if it was listed on the Historic Preservation District Application. Martin Kane asked the applicant if they needed a variance for the fence. Jason Rittie asked for a break to speak to his client about the fence. After the break Mr. Rittie stated his client would remove the fence from the application if the Board granted the subdivision.

Chairmen Bailey opened the hearing to the public again. Mark Brancato said the house (Hapgood #176) was historic. He asked Mr. Tobia the following questions. Did the applicant apply to the Historic Preservation Committee for this application, no the applicant did not. He asked if Mountain Lak es was a planned residential community; yes it was. Was the town entitled to have zoning control; yes they are allowed to have reasonable controls. Mr Tobia thought the project fit in with the planning controls of the town. Mr. Brancato continued the building box was deficient but you can build a reasonable home in that box; Mr. Tobia responded yes you could. Are there steep slopes in the building box; we think they are minimal. Mr. Brancato asked, you suggested we move the house to conform, would we now have to move the proposed the property line? Mr. Tobia said yes you would but the statues suggest this is exactly what you should not do.  Don’t you think this meant to be one large lot; Mr. Tobia did not think so if it was the house would have been built in the middle of the lot. Mr. Brancato thought one house would provide more elbow room wouldn’t that be better? No, MLUL talks about sufficient space not maximum amount of elbow room we meet all the setbacks for the new lot. Mr Brancato asked does the existing home have enough slope to have a drive under garage; yes. Is it accurate you could do a do a drive under garage for the new house; yes.

Tom Dagger looked at the Historic Preservation District Application dated January 1, 2005. It lists the garage as an historic structure.  He asked the applicant, wouldn’t the development of the lot make it appear that it was originally meant to be one lot. Mr. Tobia said he don’t think so. Mr. Dagger said the garage would not fall under our new historic preservation ordinance.

Due to the time the application needed to be carried. Mr. Brancato would have Mr. Verzaleno and two other witnesses speaking about the application next month. It was agreed the application would be carried to the June 26th meeting.

 

Other Business

Ordinance 05-14            Amending Chapter 245 and 40 of the “Revised General Ordinances”

                                    245-20 A. Lakefront Exception

                                    40-3 Definitions – Setback Line

 

Jim Bailey explained to the Board they needed to determine if the ordinance changes were consistent with the Master Plan. The Board Secretary explained the request for the changes came from the Zoning Board of Adjustment.  One typo was found under Chapter 40-3, Setback Line.

Dan Happer made the motion the amendments to Chapter 245 and 40 of the Revised General Ordinance were consistent with the Master Plan. Martin Kane provided the second and the Board voted by voice vote in favor of the motion.

             

Committee reports – none

 

The Board Secretary reminded everyone to fill out their disclosure forms.

 

Public Comments – No one from the public was present.

 

Chairmen Bailey made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:12 pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

                                                                                    Cynthia Shaw, Secretary