GLEN ROCK ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of the October 12, 2017 Meeting The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chairman Diane Herrlett at 7:30 p.m. In attendance: William Mitchell, Janet Chen, Barbara Schineller, Robert Bourne, Kay Tuite and Mark Sturiale. Denley Chew was absent. Also in attendance was Spencer Rothwell, Esq., Board Attorney. The Secretary called the roll and read the Sunshine Statement from the Open Public Meetings Act. The Board reviewed the minutes of the September 6, 2017 work session and September 14, 2017 and May 11, 2017 regular meeting. A motion was made by Mrs. Schineller and seconded by Mrs. Tuite and passed unanimously with Mrs. Chen abstaining on the May 11 th meeting, Mr. Bourne abstaining on the September 6 th meeting and Mr. Sturiale abstaining on the September 14 th meeting. Old Business Block 1, Lot 1 340 Prospect Street Applicant: Ms. Ann Marie Phillips Memorializing resolution denying variance to use the second floor of an existing detached garage for a recreation room/pool cabana. A motion to approve the memorializing resolution of Ms. Ann Marie Phillips, 340 Prospect Street was made by Mrs. Schineller and seconded by Mr. Mitchell. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Herrlett, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Schineller, Mr. Bourne, Mrs. Tuite, Mr. Sturiale None Mrs. Chen abstained from voting. The resolution is attached to these minutes. New Business: Block 99, Lot 5 34 Wilson Street Applicant: Ms. Lyn Clark Applicant constructed detached garage which encroaches into the required side yard. Applicant seeks relief from Borough Ordinance 230-14(A)(3), where 6 is required, 5.5 is existing, a difference of.5 and any other variances or waivers that might be required in connection with this application.
Page 2 of 6 Mr. Rothwell swore in Kevin Clark, 34 Wilson Street. Mr. Clark several years ago they did construction to their home which including the rebuilding and relocation of their garage. The garage was initially built in the 1900 s and was unusable as well as being non-compliant to code being located too close to the road. At that time, no variances were required for the relocation of the garage as it was located within the required setbacks (6 ). Needless to say, the applicant was surprised when they learned the garage was actually only 5 6 from the property line and deficient in the setback. In speaking with the contractor and the surveyor, both parties denied there was a professional error on either of their parts. Mr. Clark acknowledged even though they are 6 closer to the property line there is no benefit to them nor loss to others. Mr. Clark did acknowledge there is a considerable cost to them to no fault of their own if the variance is denied. Mrs. Herrlett asked when a foundation is laid is there an inspection to verify it is in the correct location. Mrs. Spiller replied there should have been a foundation location survey submitted, which was not. This is the responsibility of the homeowner as indicated on their plans. Mr. Clark noted ultimately the homeowner is responsible for the project; however, that is also why professionals were hired to address and submit necessary paperwork. Mr. Mitchell asked if the garage was built on the existing footprint or was it moved. Mr. Clark replied the garage was relocated as it was initially too close to the road, which is why it was moved to the back of the property. Mrs. Spiller asked what is adjacent to the garage on the neighboring property. Mr. Clark replied it their garage is next to their neighbor s garage. Mr. Rothwell swore in Lyn Clark, 34 Wilson Street. Mrs. Clark submitted a photograph of their garage and the location in relation to their neighbor s property. Mrs. Herrlett questioned what the hardship would be, noting finances cannot be taken into consideration.
Page 3 of 6 Mr. Rothwell swore in Yvonne Reuter, 30 Wilson Street. Mrs. Reuter lives next door to the applicant. Mrs. Reuter noted the back of the applicant s garage faces the side of her garage. Mrs. Reuter believes that 6 does not make a difference with the alleyway between the two garages. Mr. Mitchell commented the relocation of the garage creates a safer location than the original location, believing the 6 is a diminimus amount. There were no further questions or comments from the audience or anyone on the Board. A motion to approve the application of Ms. Lyn Clark, 34 Wilson Street was made by Mrs. Schineller and seconded by Mr. Bourne. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Chen, Mrs. Schineller, Mr. Bourne, Mrs. Tuite, Mr. Sturiale, Mrs. Herrlett None The resolution will be memorialized at the next meeting. Block 18, Lot 8 88 Norwood Avenue Applicant: Mr. Vladimir Vassev and Elena Todorova Applicant proposes to construct front vestibule and mudroom which will, if constructed, encroach into the required front yard, exceed the permitted building structure coverage and effective gross floor area (EGFA). Applicant seeks relief from Borough Ordinance 230-54(B), where a front yard of 50 is permitted, 25.17 is proposed, a difference of 24.83, 230-54(G) where 25% (1,500 square feet) building/structure coverage is permitted, 26.82% (1,610 square feet) is proposed, a difference of 1.82% (110 square feet) and 230-54(J) where an EGFA of 39.37% (2,363 square feet) is permitted, 43.55% (2,614 square feet) is proposed, a difference of 251 square feet and any other variances and waivers that might be required in connection with this application. Mr. Rothwell swore in Vladimir Vassey, 88 Norwood Avenue. Mr. Vassey stated they would like to construct a vestibule and extend the existing mudroom by 3. Currently the front entrance enters the home in the middle of the living room. A mudroom currently exists in the back; however they are proposing to extend it. The finished dimensions of the new mudroom would be 7.4 x 7.31/2.
Page 4 of 6 Mr. Bourne clarified the mudroom is being expanded to 50 square feet and the vestibule in the front would be approximately 28 square feet. Consequently, 78 square feet are being added to the house. The EGFAR variance is 251 square feet which means the house was initially not in compliance. This would explain why the EGFAR variance is so large when only 78 square feet can be accounted for. At this time, there was considerable discussion on the building coverage calculations. Mrs. Spiller clarified that there seems to be some discrepancy with the stated addition of 27 square feet for building structure coverage yet by Mr. Bourne s calculations it should be approximately 78 square feet that is being added. Mr. Bourne requested that the architect be present to explain the anomalies. Mrs. Schineller agreed that the application is confusing because of the large EGFAR variance being requested. Mrs. Spiller commented that if the applicant were to do noting he already exceeds the EGFAR allowance. What is confusing is that the application states only 27 square feet are being added. The question is exactly how many square feet are being added, which does not seem to be clearly indicated. After considerable discussion, the Board requested Mr. Vassey to postpone until the November meeting and bring his architect to clarify the application. Block 45, Lot 5 161 Rutland Road Applicant: Mr. Anthony Adesso Applicant proposes to construct second floor addition which will, if constructed, exceed the permitted Effective Gross Floor Area Ratio. Applicant seeks relief from Borough Ordinance 230-54(J), where 3,055.5 square feet (36.4%) is permitted, 3,241 square feet (38.58%) is proposed, a difference of 185.5 square feet and any other variances and waivers that might be required in connection with this application. Mr. Rothwell swore in Anthony Adesso, 161 Rutland Road. Mr. Adesso is the architect as well as the applicant. Mr. Adesso is testifying as an architect. Mr. Adesso is a licensed architect in the State of New Jersey and has testified before numerous Boards throughout the State. The Board accepted Mr. Adesso as an expert in the field of architecture.
Page 5 of 6 Mr. Adesso stated they would like to construct a second floor addition and rework some of the existing space. They will be removing a strangely configured roof area. Everything that is being constructed on the second floor will be pushed back in an effort to maintain the existing gable roof. The building height will remain the same and will be keeping a portion of the flat roof as a terrace. This house has zero to no closet space so the second floor will be configured to remedy this. The application does not exceed any of the setbacks. Very little of this addition will even be visible from the street. The applicant is requesting relief from the EGFAR. Mr. Adesso believes the hardship to be the narrowness of the property at 60 x 248. If this lot width were expanded by 5 they would not need an EGFAR variance. Mrs. Spiller commented that the Zoning Official revised the square footage to 185.5 from 168 square feet. Mr. Adesso noted their square footage was taken off of the survey. Mr. Adesso is not sure how Mr. Berninger arrived at the new figure 1618 square feet. Mrs. Herrlett asked if Mr. Adesso is willing to accept Mr. Berninger s calculations or would they like to wait until next month when Mr. Berninger can be present. Mrs. Spiller strongly suggested, if the Board were to vote, to vote on the higher number because if they are approved and they come for a building permit it would be based on the higher number. Mr. Adesso expressed concern that this calculation was changed after the application was submitted and approved. Mrs. Spiller clarified that it is only a difference of 17 square feet. Mrs. Herrlett asked if any modifications were considered to stay within the allowable EGFAR. Mr. Adesso replied they did try several different configurations however due to existing structural features it would create extensive demolition. Mr. Bourne clarified the second floor will be going over the existing first floor with no impediment to the neighboring properties. Mr. Adesso replied that is correct.
Page 6 of 6 Mrs. Schineller clarified that the variance will be based on 185.5 square feet. Mrs. Schineller commented she is not happy with any EGFAR variance however due to the shape of the lot, the Arboretum located behind this property and that it will not be visible from the street she is comfortable supporting the application. A motion to approve the application of Mr. Anthony Adesso, 161 Rutland Road, using 185.5 square feet, was made by Mrs. Schineller and seconded by Mrs. Tuite. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Chen, Mrs. Schineller, Mr. Bourne, Mrs. Tuite, Mr. Sturiale, Mrs. Herrlett Mr. Mitchell The resolution will be memorialized at the next meeting. Block 17, Lot 10 366 South Maple Avenue Applicant: 366 South Maple Avenue Associates, LLC Applicant requests use variance and preliminary and final site plan approval for construction of a three (3) story eight (8) unit multiple family residential building with first floor parking garage and any other variances or waivers that may be required in connection with this application. At the request of the applicant, this application will be heard on November 9, 2017. As there were no further residents wishing to be heard, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mrs. Chen, seconded by Mr. Bourne and passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Spiller Board Secretary