GLEN ROCK ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of the September 14, 2017 Meeting The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was called to order by Co-Chairman Diane Herrlett at 7:30 p.m. In attendance: William Mitchell, Janet Chen, Barbara Schineller, Denley Chew, Robert Bourne, Kay Tuite and Mark Sturiale. Also in attendance was Spencer Rothwell, Esq., Board Attorney and Tom Behrens, Borough Planner. The Secretary called the roll and read the Sunshine Statement from the Open Public Meetings Act. The Board reviewed the minutes of the August 2, 2017 work session and August 10, 2017 regular meeting. A motion was made by Mrs. Tuite and seconded by Mr. Bourne and passed unanimously with Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Chen and Mr. Bourne abstaining on the August 10 th meeting. Old Business Block 162, Lot 8 74 Berkeley Place Applicant: Mr. Glenn Handler Memorializing resolution approving variance for swimming pool patio which encroaches into the required side yard. A motion to approve the memorializing resolution of Mr. Glenn Handler, 74 Berkeley Place was made by Mr. Chew and seconded by Mrs. Tuite. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Herrlett, Mrs. Schineller, Mr. Chew, Mr. Bourne, Mrs. Tuite None Mr. Mitchell and 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. Postponed until October 12, 2017 at the request of the applicant.
Page 2 of 7 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. Mr. Ceviche, Esq. (possibly incorrect name, inaudible) noted his appearance on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Ceviche commented he has been in constant contact with the Borough through the Board and professionals representing the Borough. There is a legitimate difference of opinion between the applicant and the Borough regarding the specific type of height variance that is necessary. As a result, Mr. Ceviche has requested that this application be continued until the November meeting (scheduling conflict with October meeting dates). Mr. Ceviche stated the applicant will re-notice the public in time for the November meeting, at which time the applicant will proceed. This application will be postponed until the November 1 st work session and November 9 th regular meeting. Block 1, Lot 1 340 Prospect Street Applicant: Ms. Ann Marie Phillips Applicant proposes to use the second floor of an existing detached garage for a recreation room/pool cabana. Applicant seeks relief from Borough Ordinance Section 230-14(A)(1) which permits storage only on the second floor of an accessory structure in the A-2 Residential Zone and any other variances or waivers that may be required in connection with this application. David Rutherford, Esq. noted his appearance on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Rutherford stated the reason the applicant is appearing before the Board is because the Code states the second floor of an accessory structure may not be used as living space and may only be used for storage. Mr. Rutherford stated the applicant proposes to finish the second floor of an approximately 722 square foot garage. The second floor would be air conditioned and have a waterless toilet. The exterior would remain virtually the same as it currently exists.
Page 3 of 7 Mr. Rutherford believes that the granting of this variance actually offers a better zoning alternative. Mr. Rutherford noted that the applicant could choose to construct a second accessory structure on the property to meet the needs of the applicant and it could be constructed without variance relief. Alternatively, the applicant prefers to use and repurpose an existing structure and avoid the disruptiveness of new construction. It will also avoid a second accessory structure, preserving light and air, which is the purpose of zoning. The size, height and exterior configuration of the garage would not change. To the casual observer the difference will be imperceptible. Mr. Rutherford noted this application could be avoided; however, the applicant believes this is a better alternative than constructing another building on the property. Mr. Rutherford noted one of the reasons for the ordinance in which they seek relief is to avoid the possibility of the second floor being used for dwelling purposes. This should not be a concern as there will be no bathing or kitchen facilities. Mr. Rutherford also offered, if the Board sees fit to grant the variance, that a resolution be filed with the County enforcing that the second story will not be used for dwelling purposes. This will also assure that future homeowner s do not use the premise as a dwelling. Mr. Rothwell swore in Xiomara Parades, architect for the applicant. Ms. Parades has appeared before this Board numerous times and has been accepted as an expert in the field of architecture. Ms. Parades described the structures that currently exist on the property. There is a single family dwelling in the front and a barn with an attached garage in the rear. The garage is 722 square feet, which will remain the same. The first floor (24 x 30 ) consists of a two-car garage, storage in the rear and stairs leading to the second floor. The second floor is currently used for storage with a height of 4 6. A sliding door will be installed on the right side of the building in the existing wall. The garage door and barn door will also remain as is. The rear elevation on the left side will only have a door. The materials and colors to be used will be consistent with the materials and colors on the home. Mr. Rutherford clarified that the only changes to the exterior will be a door added to the left side, French door added to the right side elevation and a European balcony, which doesn t protrude and is simply a railing for safety. Mr. Rutherford presented four exterior photographs, which were marked Exhibit A-1 as well as Exhibit A-2 which were interior photographs.
Page 4 of 7 Ms. Parades referred to Exhibit A-2 showing the interior of the second floor. There is a storage area, fireplace with sitting area, bar area and powder room. Mr. Rutherford clarified that the bathroom will not be hooked up to the sewer system. The system is not meant to be used continually. Mrs. Herrlett commented her research states that a cabana is a small dressing room next to a pool, which could easily be added on this property. Mrs. Herrlett questioned going upstairs to change your clothes is a better alternative to that of a small room next to the pool. This is not a cabana, it is a rec room. Ms. Parades commented she has designed five cabanas in the last year. Current applicants want more than a simple cabana. Mrs. Schineller commented it seems the terms cabana and recreational room are being used interchangeably. Which one is it? Ms. Parades believes one does not exclude the other, the room is giving support to the pool area. Mrs. Herrlett commented accessibility would be next to the pool, not on the second floor of a garage. Mr. Rutherford expressed explicitly that the building will be used in connection with the pool. Mrs. Tuite asked if this room is an accessory to the pool where is the shower. Mr. Rutherford replied there will not be a shower, which was specifically designed as such so there would be no implication of a potential dwelling. Mr. Bourne asked if the building would be insulated. Mr. Rutherford replied yes. Mrs. Herrlett commented the room has now become habitable year round, there is heat and air conditioning. Mr. Rutherford presented Exhibit A-3 which shows where a second accessory building could be placed on the property that would perform the same function.
Page 5 of 7 Ms. Parades replied this building would be approximately 10 x 20. Ms. Parades noted this does increase impervious and building coverage. There will be less open space, less light and more excavation. The use of an existing structure is environmentally responsible. Ms. Parades believes the variance is the better option. Ms. Parades added the location of the building is also further from the pool, across from the driveway and not as convenient. Mr. Bourne asked what the square footage of the second floor of the garage is. Ms. Parades replied it is 722 square feet of which 200 square feet has a very low ceiling. Mr. Bourne noted that essentially twice the amount of square footage is available versus constructing a secondary accessory structure. Mr. Bourne expressed concern that once the second floor is insulated it becomes very easy to become a dwelling. Mrs. Schineller had a concern with the space being useable year-round. Ms. Parades also commented that if a second accessory structure were constructed that is the first building that is seen when entering the property. Mr. Rutherford reiterated in their opinion to create more impervious coverage, less light, air and open space and more building coverage is more of a detriment to the neighborhood than using space that is already present. Mr. Rutherford respectfully requested the Board to focus on the Zoning and Planning aspects of the project and not whether it has the potential to become a permanent dwelling. Mr. Rutherford believes this space is not reasonably adaptable to become a full-time dwelling. Ms. Parades noted that a second accessory building would be approximately 8 in height and 18 from the property line. Mrs. Tuite asked if it were possible to bump out the first floor of the garage. Ms. Parades replied she would need a variance to do this. Mr. Rothwell swore in Ann Marie Phillips, applicant. Mr. Rutherford asked Ms. Phillips to describe how and when they use their pool.
Page 6 of 7 Ms. Phillips replied they typically try to open their pool in early May and it remains open until the end of October. Ms. Phillips noted she can understand the Board s concerns adding that if they were more comfortable without the heating and cooling elements on the second floor they could be eliminated. Mr. Rutherford summarized his argument with previously stated testimony, realizing this is not a hardship case but rather a better alternative. Mrs. Schineller asked if the applicant would be willing to eliminate the bathroom as well. Mr. Rutherford stated they believe the bathroom is a necessity. Mrs. Herrlett commented she is more comfortable with a small building next to the pool. There s a reason the ordinance is in place to prevent apartment dwelling. Mr. Bourne commented he prefers the use of an existing building and is comfortable with the heating and cooling removed. This cabana is going to happen one way or the other. There were no further questions or comments from the audience or anyone on the Board. A motion to approve the application of Ms. Ann Marie Phillips, 340 Prospect Street with the heating and cooling removed was made by Mr. Bourne and seconded by Mrs. Chen. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bourne, Mrs. Chen Mrs. Herrlett, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Schineller, Mr. Chew, Mrs. Tuite 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. Postponed until October 12, 2017 at the request of the applicant.
Page 7 of 7 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 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Spiller Board Secretary