let's get things started with call the meeting to order good evening everyone this is the municipal L use Board of the burrow River Edge meeting for Wednesday November 29th 2023 time now is 7:31 p.m. this meeting of the municipal land use Board of the burough River Edge is being held remotely and recorded via Zoom due to bur council chambers on availability is in compliance with the provisions of the open public meetings act and Associated regulations notice of this remote meeting was published in the Bergen record on October 6 2022 posted on the front doors of burrow Hall and posted on the Burrow's website the notice included the dial in and login information necessary for public participation and access to this meeting remotely the copy of the agenda for this meeting was made available on the Burrow's website near the posting of the meeting notice and included the dial in and login information during the public comment period of this meeting if you would like to make a public comment please press the raise hand button on Zoom or dial star9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand the board will will address You by name or by the last four digits of your telephone number you may mute and unmute Yourself by pressing the microphone icon on Zoom or dialing star six on your telephone keypad you must state your name and address prior to making a public comment with that I'll ask Miss sty to call the role please all right thank you Mr Mayor present Mr caslin here miss Bolan here Mr merman here Mr feffer here Mr Craig here Mr Eric helian is absent at the moment um councilman Kino present Mr Gibbons was excused he's excused yep Mr Esposito is excused and Mr bed is excused also present um is Mr barens our board planner and uh Greg odonnell will'll be serving as the board engineer for tonight okay uh one item of housekeeping before we get started uh we're going to have a curfew of 10m this evening we'll take stock of where we are in the proceedings at that time and um if there's agreement to continue on past that depending on where things stand um we'll take stock of it at that point in time our first item on the agenda for the evening is the approval of minutes for the board's meeting of October 25 Mr chairman yes sir I reviewed the minutes and I have no comments thank you Mr Murman anyone else from the board have comments to the minutes for 10:25 okay they're being none I'll take a motion to approve please so moved thank you m bowan there a second second I think I got uh Mr cray on the second all right and it looks like Mr Eric kellian is here now um good evening everybody my apologies had a little technical difficulty logging into the internet but I'm good thank you but all right good evening okay we can do a voice vote everyone everyone here um was present at that meeting okay great okay with that uh all in favor for approving the 1025 minutes as presented hi hi obain okay thank you all next item for under approval minutes is the minutes for our meeting on November 8th 2023 a draft of the minutes were circulated the board prior to this evening's meeting uh open it for comments or questions from the board Mr chairman I also review these minutes and I I'm fine with them I'm happy I have no comments thank you Mr merman any other comments from the board okay there being none I'll take a motion on approving the minutes as presented moved thank you Mr C is there a second second thank you Mr faffer Mr feffer were you I I have that you were absent that meeting oh that was the last meeting I'm sorry yeah that's second okay thank you Miss ban okay um so the the only one then who's ineligible to vote is Mr feffer um yes okay okay the exception Mr feffer all in favor I I can you oppose any any another Mr Feer okay there being n minutes from November 8 or approved thank you all next item on this the agenda for this evening um uh we did not get the memorialization for dabd no I did I'll have that for the next meeting that's fine no problem there so we're going to continue on then under completeness review excuse me first item this evening is Andrew IP property is 929 Summit Avenue block 202 lot two applications seeking approval to to install a new patio and walkways uh Miss steinley thank you prior to the meeting I reviewed the proofs submitted by the applicant and found them to be sufficient for the board to hear the application tonight okay thank you Mr Burns good evening uh from a completeness perspective U as you said Mr chairman the application is for a patio and and Associated walkways uh the board has received a an accurate property survey as well as a uh plan which is to scale of the proposed Improvement so I believe the board has sufficient information to proceed okay thank you questions from the board on completeness of the application okay being none I would entertain a motion uh on completeness of this application so thank you is that Mr Eric hilan I think SEC thank you Miss poan all right Mr Mayor yes Mr kaslin yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr faffer yes Mr Craig yes Mr Eric kellian yes councilman Keno yes and the motion passes okay thank you everyone next item under completeness review this evening uh the applicant is quangs Lee property is 750 Center Street block 410 Lot 4 application uh seeking approval to construct an addition to an existing dwelling and Associated site improvements Miss steinley yes thank you um prior to the meeting I reviewed the proof submitted by the applicants attorney and found them to be sufficient for the board to hear the application tonight okay thank you Mr baren in addition um I reviewed the application materials which include a an existing property survey plans for um proposed improvements which include an addition to the dwelling patio and and other Associated improvements which appear to be complete okay thank you sir questions from the board on completeness okay there being none I'll look for a motion on completeness of this application Mr chairman I think I got a first from Miss Bolan and a second from Mr AR Kellan okay Mr Mayor yes Mr caslin yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes Mr cray yes Mr Eric kellian yes councilman kigo yes and the motion passes okay thank you uh our final item under complete this evening is the applicant is Katherine or Katherine and Nicholas Sartor property is 131 Kensington Road Block 815 block two application seeking approval with regard to development of a two-story Edition on an existing dwelling and additional property improvements Miss steinley yes thank you prior to the meeting I reviewed the proof submitted by the applicant and found them to be sufficient for the board to have jurisdiction over the application tonight okay thank you Mr Barons um as you stated Mr chairman the application is primarily for an addition to an existing dwelling um the lot happens to be a corner lot which um drives the need for some of the relief being requested but in any event the applicant submitted a an accurate property survey and Architectural plans which appear to be complete okay thank you Mr baren questions or comments from the board as to completeness on this application okay there being none I look for a motion to on completeness of the application so moved thank you bow is there a second M thank you Mr CRA all right Mr Mayor yes Mr klin yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes Mr cray yes Mr Eric kellian sorry yeah and councilman Kino yes motion passes okay thank you everyone moving along into new business on the agenda this evening first item under new business is uh applicant is Andrew IP property is 929 Summit Avenue block 202 in lot two applications seeking approval to install a new patio and walkways I believe I see Mr IP in the audience good evening good evening uh do you have anyone else appearing with you or you will you be the only one giving testimony this evening um I believe my neighbor Mike hasor is on um but otherwise it's my wife here Ling hi okay so I'm gonna turn to miss steinley so she can do the all right if you please raise your right hands do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes yes and please just State your names and provide your address for the record Andrew EP uh link shoe it's 929 Summit Avenue River Edge okay thank you okay so for the for the benefit of the board if you would could you provide a sum of the uh your proposal and what you're looking for in terms of relief from the board uh yeah sure we have a corner lot um which we moved here about three years ago uh and we don't have really any sort of outdoor space just really a kind of a five foot landing and so we wanted to have an outdoor patio space um L you wanted to describe oh yeah so I mean we're looking to start a family and um my parents are also looking to live in the OR well move to the area um and so we wanted to have a patio space to be able to accommodate for that and since we do live in a corner lot uh we do have kind of a larger sidey yard I guess and so the plan that the contractor and I our we came up with was slightly above the 35% limit uh I think it was around 500 or so square feet um and so we wanted to proceed but yeah is why we're here tonight so okay um is there any sort of hardship that you have in terms of what you're looking to do that's um that's preventing you or that you need variance relief in order to uh proceed with the proposed Improvement hardship meeting yeah I mean is there other that you have a side I think you mentioned a sidey yard is there any other hardships that you have for which variance relief would be um would help you to achieve the desired outcome um no okay all right um thank you for that I'm going to turn it into the board now for questions on the applications so I'm going to start with um um Mr cray I'll start with you if I may um sure I got all the correct information on uh the survey that you provided it shows your total lot area is 9,552 square feet is that correct yes so you have an oversized lot compared to typal lot inage whichard generally 7500 feet or less so you have a wi lot than typical um so the the amount of coverage you're looking for at 37% is you know somewhere in the range of 3500 feet 3500 square feet where on a 750 square foot lot it's like 2600 at at at um 35% which is you know what the the Cod close for um so it's kind of a it's it's an awful lot of extra space to be asking for especially to go above the 35% when you have such a big lot um I guess and want to back up on the The Patio that you're putting in is 25 by 20 so that's 500 square feet right the walkway from the driveway that's is that a four foot wide walk the hallway the eight foot line and the four foot line um it is it is about I think three foot not 4 foot I I don't know if it is well on the on the survey that's marked up it shows the the bottom leg of it being four foot wide yeah uh and it looks like the 8 foot length is about the same width I mean is that three for do you know uh I have my contractor he was going to join I can call him in but um if you would like more specific measurements but what he drew on the survey is what was planned well I I just want to make sure because the number that's on the on the other survey says you're atting 610 feet uh or that's on that on that drive it says approximately 610 feet and I think it's more than that if the you have a 17 foot leg that's three foot wide which would be about 42 square feet uh you've got that 8x4 piece is 32 the 4x4 is another 16 so that's 48 that's 8 90 and then you've got that 17 by3 or four walkway and then there's the other leg of that walkway which isn't dimensioned I think there's more than 610 feet there um but but it the difference probably another 10 or 15 square feet something like that um I guess when I look at this my My overall question is you know you've got a lot of square footage to work with is there any way you can look at redesigning this so that you're within the 35% coverage as opposed to going up to 37% 37 plus percent on on what is a a very large lot so we discussed this with our contractor and I mean it's hard to see I guess on the survey but our our yard is it is quite large and I think um a 20 x 25 plot for a patio actually isn't that uh at least in relative size I understand we have a larger lot because we're a corner lot um so he really wanted to go through with this proposed plan um like I said I'm happy to have him on the phone he's driving home from a work uh because I don't think we were planning to to redesign it but um we're obviously happy to listen to what the board I guess would suggest for us but right well I guess just to be frank when I'm looking at a lot a lot this size and this large um I really would like to see that number closer to 35% than 37 so um other than that I'm I'm done I'm good okay thank you Mr gr I apologize I probably should have started with Mr Baron first Mr chairman baren if I could would you Mr chairman I don't know if you could hear me Mr chairman oh Mr peer yes yeah just just a point of order um I think it would probably before we go too deep into this application it sounds like it might be helpful uh if Mr I can call his contractor and have him on this uh participate in this meeting um because it it seems just from just from the questioning we just heard um that they themselves are are not probably not prepared to get into specific structural changes and discussions of structural changes so I'm just wondering if maybe we could pause on this application and let them uh have an opportunity to call their contractor and then recall it when he can come on he's on now he's on the phone oh okay never mind no under our rules for remote meetings if you are providing testimony you need to be providing video um and audio so he would have to use zoom um to be sworn in all right okay Tom I don't know how far you are from your yeah let me uh let me let me get off here quick see if I can get on you there yeah okay let me let me uh hop off here I'll see if I can get on there okay thank you all right thanks so Marina you know we've got a sort of a packed agenda this evening so is there a way we can sort of table this for the moment until a their contractor is available and move on or should we yeah we could do that if you want we'll just Mark the time yeah I think just given the fact that we've got we've got two other applications to be heard and other professionals here with those folks i' think with the interest of time and expediency I think we've we should keep moving okay so so Mr R we'll come back to you on on your application when when your contractor is available um so please stand by in the meantime let's continue on then with the agenda uh the next applicant application for be heard this evening under a new business uh is Quang s Lee property is 750 Center Street block 410 Lot 4 uh an application seeking uh approval to construct an addition to an existing dwelling and Associated site of improvements good evening Mr Barrett good evening Mr Kasin and members of the board uh Thomas J Barrett for the applicants um as has been described this is a proposal to expand an existing one family dwelling uh it's on a corner of Center Avenue and River Street I believe it is uh a street that I was not familiar with before this application I mean I knew it existed I didn't know its name um and because of that we have uh two front yards we're not looking to encroach any further into the front yard than already exists uh the proposal is and you'll hear it from our architect uh to extend the home long river uh at the same uh setback of uh 13 .5 ft uh the front the existing front yard and the uh front yard which will remain on Center is 29.5 ft uh we are looking to uh expand the coverage from 16.4% to 25.5% so a half a percent over the uh the allowed limit uh a total of actually 43 square feet and again we'll hear about the design of the structure and what leads to that uh request and then with respect to the uh improved loot coverage there's actually a reduction and we'll have uh the architect testified to that as well but nevertheless it is over the permissible 35 ft but again it's less than which currently exists today uh but at this point I'd like to call upon Mr johnley the applicant just to briefly tell the board why he bought the house and what what you know what his hopes are uh with respect to it and then we'll get into uh the details with the architect okay M steinley okay Mr Lee please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth oh I think you're muted yes okay and please state your name and provide your address for the record uh 750 Center Avenue Liber my name is quangong Lee and he's he's accompanied by his son uh Christ uh Christian who's going to help interpret um because Mr Lee sometimes uh In the Heat of things gets a little confused so easier if he has his son so you may want to swear him in as well okay also if you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes okay thank you so Mr Lee briefly um my understanding is that you purchased the property because you've outgrown your current dwelling is that correct yes and how many how many people are there in the family uh six people right now okay and you indicated though that there's uh how many bedrooms in your current house uh right now we have is a three three bathroom uh three bedroom and one bathroom for the for the family of six yes okay and and so basically you purchase this in the hopes of expanding it and provide more more living space for the whole family yes yes I don't have any more questions of Mr Lee at this time okay um Mr baren I don't have any questions for the applicant um I think maybe just want to hear about the plans and uh the relief okay Mr odonnell uh nothing at this time I think just have the applicant explain what their plan is okay very good M Mr Barrett please continue thank you so uh if I pronounce it correctly um Mr Al Almar yes that's correct oh good good evening everyone good evening you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do please state your name spell your last name and provide your business address for the record and provide the board with some background on your experience and lure uh sure so my name is nasar Almar Al m k h t a r I'm a principal at Heritage Madison architecture located at 1171 Madison a in Patterson New Jersey uh I have been licensed for uh about more than 20 years now I have testified I do have a current licensed in good standing in the state of New Jersey I'm also licensed in New York and Pennsylvania I have testified in front of numerous boards uh throughout the state of New Jersey and been accepted in all of them as an expert witness in the field of architecture thank you thank you questions from the board as to uh architect credentials okay thanks sir M Barrett thank you oh uh sir if you would just describe the improvements uh that you designed in order to accommodate the leaf family needs uh sure if I may uh share the screen for the plans sure so uh do you see the uh screen and the drawings yes okay perfect so as mentioned before this is 750 Center Avenue this is uh a single family home existing uh single family home and actually I visited the site a couple times and the existing dwelling is in is in real need of uh renovation and uh updates uh this is located in the R1 Zone this is the zoning map of the uh Barrow and this is the location it's on the northeasterly corner of Center AV and center and uh Aven River Street I'm going to zoom on the existing site conditions uh this is the site the lot is uh a little bit irregular in shape uh on one side it's 106.1 foot deep on the other side it's 105.6 foot deep uh and then the width uh 77 facing Center a and towards the rear it's 77.0 one according to the survey uh so this is the lot uh the the blue line that you have here this indicates the existing uh boundary of the footprint of the existing dwelling uh we have a wide uh asphal driveway here on the left side that goes to the uh one one car garage and then this is the dwelling uh there is a small entrance a concrete walkway and a small entrance that leads to the house and there is a deck towards the rear it's also in in a in a dilapitated shape uh so the proposal as mentioned is to add an addition towards the rear of the backyard and a small addition here to the front to give us some space towards the front uh if we go to the proposed site plan this is the proposed site plan so this poet area indicates the proposed addition towards the rear if you notice we kept the line on the left side and on the right side the the uh the line of the existing footprint we did not increase the uh or or bump out if you will from the existing footprint and this addition small addition to the front uh it does comply in terms of the uh setbacks now the existing dwelling is 29.5 feet and this is not in compliance we only have about 6 in over the required setback which is 30 ft and the proposal for the second floor addition is to go directly above the existing the wall of the existing dwelling also because of the fact we have a corner lot River Street is also a front yard um and because of the minor irregularity and the lot shape when we go straight with the uh southerly line of the house we are increasing the uh non-con formity by about 1.3 in only so the existing is 13.5 we're going down to 13.39 which is really dominous in terms of the uh variances that we are seeking as I mentioned the front yard uh would be 6 Ines and that's a pre-existing condition and we're going uh directly above the uh front yard uh setback um in terms of uh excuse me River Street also the frontage like I explained there's only about an inch 1.3 in uh difference in terms of the coverage we're exceeding by 05% as Mr Barrett has mentioned before uh in terms of the improved lot coverage we're all we're actually reducing it a little bit uh because we're reducing the U amount of walkways the exterior and we're reducing the paved area because it was not in compliance now it's going to be in compliance uh in terms of the setback of the driveway so there's a little reduction although it's not uh in compliance the existing lot improved lot coverage is 39.3 and we're bringing it down by 39.2 which is you know minor so that's the uh the extent of the addition that we are proposing in terms of the front uh or the elevation height I should say uh we are in compliance we are a little bit lower maximum is 30 feet and we're down to 29.9 and the initial application I think Mr Baron recalls we were a little bit higher above the uh uh maximum so we managed to bring it down into compliance in terms of the height I'm not going to explain about the elevation because I uh managed to prepare a uh front facade color rendering and I'll come to it in a little bit uh so that's mainly the um front uh the the first sheet the second sheet indicates the existing conditions uh I'm going to focus on the first floor layout as you can see the kitchen is very small uh as Mr Lee has mentioned it's a family of six the spaces are chopped up very small there's not enough space for a living or dining room it's all it there's like a Breezeway here in this area which is really not usable for a family of six so uh if we go to the proposed floor plan on on the first floor uh we are proposing to have uh an entry way here accessible through you know a single door with two side lights to the right you would have a living room with the fireplace to the left side there would be a dining room uh and then towards the rear uh there would be an open floor plan layout with a family room with a sliding door leading to steps to a rear yard patio and also a kitchen with an island uh as he mentioned there's an in-law living with them so uh there would be a bedroom on the first floor because because of you know the the difficulty of going up and down there would be a a bedroom for the inlaw it's not a huge bedroom but it's just sufficient for the in-law to to stay there and with a bathroom accessible uh from the bedroom also the first floor we have a powder room a pantry access to the garage also to a mud room that leads to the kitchen area H we believe that this layout you know it it goes you know in line with the modern day living and especially with a large family like this the spaces are not huge but they are uh just good sized for for a family of this size uh if we go to the second floor that would be mainly for the family they have three kids so we are proposing three bedrooms uh as as well as a a master bedroom the two bedrooms on the right would be sharing a Jack and Jewel bathroom toilet shower and two sinks and they have their own small closets and then there is a an on Suite A bedroom here with its own bathroom I believe that's for the daughter uh and then we have a laundry room up on the second floor this would be a distributor area to all the bedrooms and then the master bedroom would be uh on the left side kind of isolated from the rest of the bedrooms would have his and her closet a master bathroom and a master bedroom um the next page this is very technical we have the Riser diagrams for the sanitary risers because we thought uh we would do the permit building permit drawings and one shot with the planning board drawings uh the elevations as you can see this is the rear elevation this is the sliding door that goes down uh through steps we're also providing some railing here for protection and this patio would be up about two feet um from the uh existing uh grading because this is flat and then the Topography of the uh lot it goes down towards the rear so we would have this uh small retaining wall which is only two foot high uh these are this the two two sides to the dwelling and this would be a siding the front yard if I may I can this is the front yard this is the front facade red theing there would be a combination for the front of uh stone with natural Earth colors uh and then a light gray siding the stone uh facing would be for the basement area up to the window the water table of the first floor Windows this would be the entrance and the entrance would be protected from the elements by a small uh porch there's also a little roof over the garage to protect the uh the garage door and we also excuse me I I don't think that's what's showing on the screen right now is this the colored rendering that you did today yes is it it's not on the screen right now oh I'm sorry let me I'm going to stop sharing and then share it again I guess okay there we go that's good thank you that's good sure we'll mark this as exhibit A1 thank you yes sorry about that so uh again uh there will be uh a stone facing Natural Earth colors and the siding would be gray color uh here there's the door the main door entrance uh and then this would be protected from the elements by a porch open porch and we also tried to provide some Dynamic to the front facade in terms of the roof uh Gables uh just to break the monotony on on the on the front facade uh and I I think this is a great improvement over what we have uh currently the existing dwelling um so yeah that's basically uh and then you showing us before I think this the sides and the rear will just be the siding the gray siding the same siding correct correct yes yep and then uh so I guess that's it as far as the uh improvements yes that's correct okay did you have an opportunity to review uh the Costa engineering letter of November 15 yes and uh you and I discussed the fact that um if the board sees fit to Grant an approval then we could uh you know as a condition of that approval uh agree to to the TV inspection of the existing sanitary sewer line yes and that you'll revise the plans to show the storm water management measures and calculations using a 3-inch rainfall event yes um as far as the existing Landscaping I should have asked Mr Lee but uh I believe he told us that all of the Landscaping is going to be removed and replaced correct and that you you will provide grading for the two foot high retaining wall along the patio that's correct and you'll make yourself familiar and comply with the soil removal ordinance chapter 354 yes and then you you will add the note about uh you know all the work has to be performed in accordance with the applicable applicable rules of Osha the New Jersey uniform code Etc yes and the soil erosion uh control measures also address we'll address that yes I have nothing further of uh be architect at this time and turn them over to the board for any questions they may have okay thank you Mr Barrett Mr Barons start with you yes good evening so um I guess I'll start with some observations um I'm being pretty familiar with this lot it's not too far from my house but not within 200 feet but in any event it is a a corner lot it's developed with a dwelling um I'd say it's in somewhat of a unique position in that the only adjacent property is developed with tow houses and there's no other adjacent single family property which I makes it somewhat unique and it's actually in a separate uh Zone it's not in the typical R1 Zone that uh most single family houses and River Edge find themselves and it's in what's called this PRD plan residential development Zone um that said it still has to ad here to the typical single family um building requirements which are basically the same as the R1 Zone but I just thought it was worth mentioning uh you know again obviously it's a corner lot and the house is positioned where it is um with respect to the non-conforming front yard uh setbacks being proposed I'll note that the the lock coverage variance uh represents an overage of about 43 square feet I think they're over by a half percent and the requested uh Pro lock coverage variance represents an overage of 34 excuse me 346 Square ft and as the applicant noted U they're reducing the coverage by I guess a tenth of a percent um in terms of well well let's let's frame all the variances right now just so we can get those and Mr bar correct me if I'm wrong but I'm just getting to my initial uh letter of uh non-compliance dated July 28th um as the architect mention mentioned I believe the the height issue has been resolved and I believe the plans now depict a compliant uh dwelling with a maximum height of less than 30 feet so I believe that issue has been addressed um again we have two uh front yard setbacks the one um on Center a is existing at 29.5 feet where 30 FTS required they're basically you know proposing a vertical addition there and the existing setback along Center Street is 13.5 ft so they're both going up and proposing we'll call a side or rear addition which um you know exacerbates that condition a bit in that they're maintaining essentially the 13.5 or slightly less uh setback and elongating the building by some amount in addition we have the as I mentioned earlier the improved uh lock coverage variants um which currently it's non-conforming at 39.3% I believe they're proposing 39.2% if I'm not mistaken and I'm just going bear with me while I go through my list so I I I just had a few other comments one was you know we've asked applicants to remove shrubs at at the corners of the property which I think this one's technically on burrow property which uh obscures driver Vis visibility excuse me um and I guess I'll ask the architect what is the current width of the driveway that's being proposed uh the I'm sorry the proposed driveway right not the existing but the proposed driveway with um is it 22 feet yes I believe it's 22 feet Yes okay so one thought that I have is that the maximum driveway width that the burrow permits is 22 feet um if you were able to shrink that down a little bit to perhaps 20 feet or even 18 feet I think it would be functional and that you could have you know two cars park side by side and you you also might be able to reduce coverage by up to 120 square feet which would be% and a half just a thought um beyond that you know there's not a whole lot of opportunity to reduce coverage um you know so to me that seems like an obvious uh maybe way to to reduce the improved loot coverage a bit further I'm not it's just a suggestion at this point um but uh Mr chairman from my perspective that about sums it up thank you Mr baren uh Mr odonnell thank you Mr chairman I believe Mr Barrett and Mr Lee basically mentioned everything we had in our letter the main concern is just storm water they're increasing the uh improved lock coverage by about 750 square or the lock coverage by about 750 square feet so as long as they provide uh adequate storm water mitigation for that and we review it uh that' be our only concern and if the architect could also provide the existing improved lock coverage uh just to show what they're going to be removing just so we could clearly see it see where the reduction is and I think that's about it okay thank you Mr Odon uh let's open it up to questions from the board at this time um Mr feerro start with you thank you I just had a question question about the U the stair the stairs in the back of the house um first of all whether it wasn't clear from the rendering whether there's um whether that's a solid staircase that goes down to the ground level or whether there's space underneath the stairs and if there's space underneath the stairs what's what's your plan for the this the uh surface area Under the Stairs yeah actually Master feffer this would be a solid stairs concrete mason yeah and and so the stairs themselves are masonry stairs correct okay and is there um soil to the right and left of the stairs or what what's what's going to be their Shrubbery uh Mr Lee mentioned that he would Prov some Landscaping there so to the right side there would be Landscaping on the left side there would be the patio the P patio okay and the p is is what material it would be concrete pavers uh you know typical of ptio material okay can can we please uh elaborate on the Landscaping um just what does the applicant have in mind in terms of screening in that location um or Landscaping you mentioned Landscaping did you have any specifics on that or I I think he mentioned that he's going to provide new Landscaping after the construction is finished but I'm not uh sure what exactly the details of that would be I'm sure he would bring maybe a landscape uh company to improve the lot in that regard Mr Barons are you concerned about the screening that patio perhaps from River I could see that as a potential public benefit if the applicant wants to offer that I I only asked because it was mentioned and I you know sometimes it helps to have Clarity when you know we're reviewing these things I I don't think I don't think that they've gotten that far other than to know that they are obviously going to landscape after making the investment that they intend to make but um Mr Lee's with us and I ask him right now I mean you have any problem screening the patio from River Street whatever you know whatever your landscaper may suggest there you're you're on mute Mr Lee uh could you repeat your question please yes the the my understanding is that the patio will be visible from River Street yes patio in the back so what Mr Barons is suggesting that perhaps some um shrubs or orid or something uh installed along the patio so that it's shielded from River Street so somebody driving along River Street is not going to be able to look right onto your patio okay you yourselves are going to be shielded and you know and and the neighbors not the neighbors but those who drive by would be shielded from seeing you sitting on your patio so it's more of a privacy thing okay right yeah yeah that not we like that idea and also Mr Ben so you know I had the opportunity to consult with the leaders and they have no issue reducing the driveway width to 20 feet okay thank you I I mean I I offered that for the board's consideration but thank you for confirming yes well I figured you know let's find out right away I I appreciate it thank you and I have nothing further Mr chairman okay thank you uh Miss Bolan oh my comment was the same I was going to be asking out the driveway so um I'm glad it's being reduced to 20 feet but also it it's not to take away too much more but it seems to go beyond the the the facade of the of the home on the side yard I don't see that why that would need to be so that would reduce a little bit more line it up with the the front faade we share I I understand what you're saying could we share the plan uh someone from the applicants team just to hone in on that all right and can we Zoom a bit well actually we could see it so I think Miss B correct me if I'm wrong but if we look at the front left corner of the house um it looks like the asphalt extends beyond the front face of the house is that what you're referring to yes so basically to have the driveway end at the front face of the house which would you know reduce it by another you know several square feet or however much only thing is 20 feet gives us a an opportunity to park two cars adjacent but if if we reduce it further I think it's going to be a little bit tight no I'm not saying reduce the 20 feet I'm just saying why go beyond the front of the house you can't park anything beyond the front facade unless it's just right there here you're you mean right right uh no there's no driveway here you want to show the line from the front Okay I'll show it here yeah correct yeah we're missing this line no problem that's it for me okay thank you m b uh Mr cray uh no my questions been C okay thank you Mr Aran I'm good Mr chairman thank you thank you sir uh councilman um seems like a reasonable request and honestly given the location of this particular house I personally don't really see why we need to ask them to reduce it from 22 to 20 I don't know that it's going to really do what the reason we're asking people to reduce um you know it's really going to achieve that goal but I'm good okay thank you sir Mr Mayor I wanted the driveway reduced too um and so they've already conceded to that so I'm good okay thank you Mr merman yeah um one one basic question um does the new front entry that you're um proposing does that um require any uh variant uh that we have to um provide I know I know front entrances uh recently have been a um focal point I was just wondering if what we have here while we're at it do we does it conform or do we need to provide a variance right so so for clarity the the ordinance allows a a portico encroachment of up to 5T into the front yard and no more than 35 square ft so I believe it meets both parameters but I'll ask the applicants team to confirm um yes I can confirm that it does meet the uh criteria okay good um what one one um clarification driveway width uh for parking purposes that's going to be at least 22 feet is that correct you you've kicked driveway around a lot and I'm a little uncertain as to what the uh width final width of the driveway is M they started the plan shows 22 feet the applicants conceded to reduce it to 20 feet why can't we have 22 you could have you could if you want it was a a suggestion to reduce the coverage that that's up to the board I I think that's a bit of a hardship I I I would recommend 22 foot width uh for parking purposes the U drop curve might be a lot less obviously but uh um I think uh 22 is better so those are those are basically my comments I think that uh what's proposed is a vast Improvement and um it's certainly going to be a benefit to the public and to the neighborhood and whenever you're ready Mr chairman I can try to um give you a a motion oh we gotta go to the public yet we're gonna go to the public first before doing so Mr Barrett do you have any further uh testimony this evening no I don't Mr Mr chairman thank you very good okay with that um like to open this application up to the public for comment um look for a motion to do so please so move thank you Mr feers there a second thank you Mr cray all in favor hi all right name POS name stain okay at this time we're now open to the public for comment on this application only miss steinley do we have anybody in the audience doesn't look like there's any attendees there what um there were there was one attendee but I think she's now a panelist so if anyone has a question you can raise your hand now okay okay very good thank you all right with that we'll take a motion to close to the public move thank Mr C or a second second thank you Mr Kellan all in favor I any oppose any abstain okay at this time we're now closed to the public for comment on this application uh at this point any final comments questions from the board can we resolve the 22 foot is it in or out well I think that that's going to be the the subject of the motion if made okay if this at this point if no further comments or questions we'll look for a motion on the application M Mr chairman Mr I don't know if Mr Barrett would like to call the the board to see about the 20 versus 22 to see where we stand before we go ahead with a motion that uh may or may not be granted because of the change uh I up to Mr Barrett well uh Mr chairman I mean you know obviously the project was designed with a 22- foot wide Drive-In I think you know um speaking from experience uh The Wider it is you know the less likely the door is going to get dinged and things of that nature if however the board did not see fit um to approve the project because of that then obviously we would be more than happy to reduce it down to the 20 feet uh we can live with the 20 feet um 22 is better but you know really we have to leave it up to the board uh the most important thing is that you know the family would like to proceed and they feel that that's a minor inconvenience um which they're willing to live with if if necessary I guess my question was did you want to ask the board members what their thinking was 20 versus 22 before we go ahead with the vote sure that that would be helpful I just it might be proofed I'll start off by saying I agree with Mr merman it's Dom minimist it's it's not a you know big deal and yeah I I don't want to see them digging their cars so I agree with Mr merman on the 22 okay Miss ban uh I was leaning towards the 20 I I think it it's it's uh 20 foot is wide enough um but I'll defer to the majority of the board okay Mr Mayor I agree with Miss bowan only because it's an oversized lot it's 8,133 point5 and they're already moving from a lot coverage of 16.4 to 25.5 and we're granting that um I just as we were chided last meeting by a resident uh we should uh we seem to be granting uh as pretty much whatever client um applicants want I think uh 20 feet if if the uh if the applicant is willing to do that just reduces lot coverage a little bit and um but I would defer to the majority so when the vote comes I'll ask to vote last okay thanks sir Mr feffer yeah it's funny I I'm I go back and forth on this because on the one hand I I think that uh the additional two feet doesn't really make much of a difference um and um and that's what the applicant wants people don't seem to feel very strongly about it um on the other hand part of me is saying hey if somebody is voluntarily reducing the surface area um you know why not go with it um any opportunity we have to uh reduce coverage is a plus um so I'm real wishy-washy on it I'll con I'll confess to that and I will just go with the majority I think either either way uh is is not going to be a major um negative precedent Mr Cay I guess I think I was helpy to hear the 20 foot the acceptance of 20 foot for two reasons one just you know kind of the the the willingness to um you know to make some changes to to get the best result and two I'm looking at this driveway it's it's deep enough to stagger two cars so the the issue of you know kind of dinging and bangging cars is probably less than it might be uh where they had to park side by side um so I think I'd like to see them reduce it to 20 feet um again especially in in light of again you know some of the uh commentary we've had you know in the last couple of meetings about what is being approved and what what levels we're trying to achieve I think anytime we can make a step towards it um the better um so I'd like to see the 20 foot [Music] um it sounds like that uh there's not a tremendous amount of uh you know rigidity in people looking at 20 versus 22 so I mean I guess I'll go along with the with the crowd that if 22 seems to be the majority number that's fine but I think um I think just from the standpoint of a statement um getting that to foot reduction is probably not a bad thing so Mr Craig you're you're you're voting for 20 feet Yes okay councilman um I think you all know that historically I've actually been very conservative on this uh Point uh and I tend to uh vote for uh less coverage um but I'm also always thinking about you know a case by case basis and I think location makes a difference and I think the reason that we're always voting um you know or having these discussions uh is for a specific reason so based on that I don't see the difference so I'd be I I don't really care either way but I think that giving the extra two feet is not gonna uh be a negative uh in River Edge uh and affording them a little more space just makes life easier uh long term so uh I I would I would say 22 feet but if the board wants 20 feet like I said I've been conservative all along so I'm okay with that as okay and from from my perspective i i would support the application either way I think you know 20 feet you know would be 20 feet or 22 feet certainly 22 feet given you know the councilman's point location is Meaningful and Center app can be a busy thoroughfare and you know if there's extra room there to move in and out that that might be helpful um that would be a good thing so um with that um so you're propos you're you're voting for 22 Fe Mr chairman is that it I'm I'm willing to go with the majority I I will support the got one in that category already Mr chairman Mr chairman I think everybody's voting left except Mr me and Mr Burman so um but I will go with I will go with the 22 I'm fine with that okay so right now now I've got uh four at 22 three at 20 and Mr Feer say he would go with the crowd is that correct Mr Feer well Mr Feer will vote before the mayor right before the mayor vote so thanks a lot oh okay we left out the mayor I'm sorry no didn't we so no no I think I think we got him we have everybody okay okay so again my summary is for four at 22 three at 20 and one Mr Feer said he he would go with the crowd so if Mr Feer goes with the crowd then we got five at 22 and three at 20 okay okay so then by consensus the board the board uh will will um including the motion of 22 feet okay okay so at this time I'll look for a motion from the Ford on the application please okay as usual I'll give it a try um regarding the Liam Park Residence at 750 Center Avenue block 410 Lot 4 um I'll make a motion at the L use board Grant the following um that the existing non-conforming front yard Center the street setback at 13 and a half Fe is recognized and legalized um the existing non-conforming front yard River Street setback at 13.8 is recognized and legalized the new rear Edition front yard River Street front yard setback at thir 1.39 ft is approved the maximum L coverage is um right now it was it was 25.5 feet um because it was over but we made some uh adjustments to the paving and so forth so that percentage uh will have to be recalculated and if we need a variance so be it I think I think that the the no none of the improved lot coverage was changed if we're going with the 22 okay okay uh fine um that the maximum approve light coverage be reduced um from 39.3 to it was 39 down to 39.2 that has that might change that figure the um professionals will have to provide you the final number on that um the applicant proposes to remove the a large tax shrub uh at the corner uh to improve the site distance um and we accept that and that should be a part of the motion likewise um the applicant um will modify the driveway and uh to reduce the side yard stepback and the curb cut um to be closer to the ordinance standards and the board has decided that a 22 foot wide driveway um is proposed by the applicant and acceptable um the board U the applicant uh confirms that he will adhere to the uh and agrees to incorporate the CER engineering comments um set forth in their report um regarding TV and sanitary sewers storm water management and so forth um the applicant from a landscape standpoint the applicant has has uh proposed to install suitable screening uh for the new pario for uh his his uh family privacy and for the public uh uh benefit I think that's about it that I have Mr Barrett was that I didn't have the note about adjusting the location of the driveway away from the side yard I don't I don't think it's there I think that I think that our architect was able to point out where Miss Bolan was looking was not actually part of the driveway am I correct Miss Bolan was that yes so I don't I don't think there is any adjustment there okay all right and and and one thing that we didn't cover that Mr Barons had raised previously uh and we forgot to address was the fence on the south side of the property along river it's not actually on the property is part of the problem that's going to be removed and if there's a new fence it'll be on the applicant's property and in Conformity with the ordinance and I believe that was part of Mr kasa's comments oh Mr KAS is okay or or or even the um the PO comments yes it is was pointed out it was pointed out that the existing fences are beyond the boundary of of this property all of them right but the the one on the south side is really adjacent to our property the others appear to belong to the neighboring properties right okay did do we did we need to cover the uh the landscape screening along River Street I believe Mr covered that okay I mentioned that you did okay okay with that is there a second for this motion I'll second the motion okay thank you Mr Eric Kellan Miss sty when you're ready if you would if you would um call on the mayor last please for his request I don't think that's necessary at this point but consensus okay all right then I'll start with the mayor yes Mr castlin yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer going with the proud I vote Yes Mr Craig yes Mr AR kellian yes and councilman Keno yes all right the motion passes okay great thank you congratulations congratulations folks enjoy your new home thank you so much thank you thank you so much have a good evening yes I'd like to wish everybody you know Merry Christmas coming up and a happy new year since I will not be appearing before you for the rest of this year happy holidays than you to you Mr Barrett take care all thank you bye bye thank you see holidays thank you again all right uh if I can can I go back to Mr IP um if you have your contractor available at this time we can um resume hearing your application is your contractor available he is on uh the call right now I've been messaging with him I don't know if Tom are you there let me just it seems like my mic is muted no we can hear you we can hear oh okay just need to turn your camera on all right still on safe driving mode be safe let's see here there we go all right okay so before we we resume we this is the uh application for a proposed patio uh the applicant is Andrew I property is 9929 Summit Avenue block 202 lock two seeking approval for the installation of a new patio and walkways um the applicant is here and the applicant's uh contractor has now is now um arrived so um Mr Harbord will swear you win Miss dley if you do the honors please if you please raise your hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes and could you please state your name provide your last name and your title um and business address uh Thomas hareld I'm the owner and it's 220 burnt meow Road Ringwood New Jersey and Could you um just spell your last name for the record h a t e NS v l d okay okay all right so just to recap before we we had to uh table this uh earlier I think we were the conversation centered around the the applicant's proposal for the size of the patio um the discussion was being had as to the um the size of the patio being requested at 37% uh just in excess of the uh allowed 35% lot coverage so discussion was had um I believe we were we left off um Mr C had asked as asked the questions on that and uh we were going to turn to um Mr baren but um Mr Baron maybe I think that's probably the best place for us to start if if I may with you and just in terms of just summarizing the um the coverage aspects for the benefit of the board and um if you'll indulge me I'm just going to share the plan I think that would help maybe frame you know the uh what's going on here so just to uh to recap where we left off we have a corner lot um this the plan happens to be cut off where toward the bottom of the screen is the summit AV Frontage so you have Frontage on Summit AV Hillside a um properties developed existing house uh driveway concrete walkway which um provides access to the uh to Summit AV as the applicant mentioned they're seeking to add some sort of you know rear yard or in this case a sidey yard uh amenity space The Proposal is uh approximately 610 square feet which includes a 500 square foot patio 25 by 20 and these uh uh attached Allway so um you know to frame the the amount of coverage that they're over by uh 35% allowed they're in excess of that by 2.3% which uh represents uh an overage of about 220 square feet um and I think where the discussion left off was we were trying to confirm and maybe um I forget your last name but Mr Hart the other Tom there's a few Toms on here the applicant's Tom just to confirm the width of the uh the walkways it looks like it's four feet wide on this section and perhaps less than that here and again the idea is you know whether or not there's any way to possibly reduce the coverage beyond what propos yeah I mean we could I mean definitely bring the walkways down to approximately three feet okay what shown now though what are we looking at now four four feet W four feet wide all the way around all the way around on on both walkways okay yes I know the board in some cases has has asked applicants to use stepping stones in lie of you know solid walkways I don't know if that's on the table but uh I mean this is the plan so I you know um in order for the board to Grant variance relief there's really um two ways to do that in accordance with the the statutory provisions of New Jersey one is whether or not there's a hardship impacting the property um a hardship can be you know lots undersized that there's some unique aspects impacting the property in terms of How It's developed if there's topography issues the other is um whether or not there's any public benefits that would result from the granting of the variants which could be in the form of um I guess I'll ask the applicant are there any drainage improvements being proposed as part of this project we have definitely you know talked about it um you know we are putting uh on the corner of the one patio we are having plant beds you know that could to take some of the patio water off you know from there uh there are trees going along the fence side there right um you know and we're definitely open to you know ideas or or suggestions on what we could do to you know get this plan to work uh and improve the you know the the the drainage within this plan all right thank so I mean I guess at this point it's a question of what the board um you know might be comfortable with or is not comfortable with if there's any other conditions that we could ask the applicant you know in terms of screening drainage you know storm water management um I think that's where we are where we left off okay sorry I'm sorry you just repeat what you said can I interject sorry I raised my hand didn't know sorry um I was going to share back the the plan let me see if it's this one yeah um yeah because Mr baren had mentioned the hardship part is as Tom and I were trying to my Tom were trying to plan this patio um for a sidew and we did not have any say into the building of of this um before we mov in but the current kind of door or deck we have is in a very awkward position where you know you can't really expand because there's a fence right right there on the side basically so we have to create this kind of longer walkway which I think obviously adds to the coverage and as you know was already mentioned you know Stepping Stones could be done or reducing the width but I don't know if that would be defined as a hardship by the town or state of New Jersey but it's a hardship for us as the homeowners since it's it's a little bit of a weird layout for us you know um in terms of trying to plan some sort of patio amenity space for us Outdoors so I just wanted to Le bring that up okay well um why let's continue going through the board's questions if any um let me turn to um I think we heard from Mr Craig already um I did want to clear something up though before sure can someone put the plan up again I want I'm doing the math right here um Okay so we've got a 25 by 20 patio so that's 500 square feet right the there's an 8x4 leg on the right so that's 32 feet and there's a 4x4 little Nu below it so that's another 16 square feet on the other side there's a 17 by4 uh walkway which gives us 68 Square ft that other leg dropping down doesn't have a dimension I'm guessing it's around 14 feet which is 56 feet so when I add all that up I get 672 square feet not 610 so I'm I'm I'm trying to figure out where the 610 is versus what I'm coming up with looking at that plan I when I look at it and I'm pretty sure I I scaled it as I do for most drawings it looks like that call the left you know longer is actually three feet I mean that's that's just what it looks like so if you if you po off a foot of about I mean it at least gets you closer to that yeah I hear what you're saying that yeah yeah I mean it's it's off by like 60 feet which is yeah I mean that could be the walkways right 177 but the walkways were actually calculated at feet that's that's a question for the applicant if they're four feet or if they concede to go to three feet I'm trying to tie in what's on their because what's on their plan is noted as having 610 feet but he said those are 4 foot wide walkways and if those are four foot wide walks it's 672 ft it's not 610 I think what uh um just look at it now I think it's a total of look at it now the one side is eight eight total feet with the with the L uh the other side I'm trying to look at it now 17 that's 17 linear feet yeah it's going to be a little shorter because I have some we have some we have to have steps in that L section there where the 17 is because of the the D the grade transition there um so it's a little bit shorter than than it's 17 and then um is it like just like just subtracted it down to three foot walkways and I got 578 total total square foot down right how how what's the dimension on the leg that drops down from the 17 foot leg I I ballparked it at 14 just based on yeah size right so that's so if it's if that's 14 you have 31 feet of walkway there times three foot wide would be 93 93 on that side right you got 500 for the patio that's 593 and then you have 8 foot and 4 foot on the other side so that's 12 time that's another 36 so you're up over 65 620 at 3 fet 24 yeah 620 right at 3 yeah at three feet yeah so we're really at at three feet we're kind of at the pretty close to the number we're talking about the 37.3% coverage then at 3 right okay so which makes it unfortunately a little tougher but I guess my question is what you know what are you willing to look at to maybe try get that closer to the 35% that that's you know wouldn't need VAR well just cutting down the size that much is a lot to to get to that number you're they're going to lose a lot of lot of space out there and and cutting it down to Stepping Stones yeah I mean it's nice but this is a main access point so like in the winter time shoveling that keeping that clear to go from the driveway to that door is is going to be you know not pleasant either for maintenance um to shorten it up like that so it's just trying to you know I mean any willingness to make the patio a little smaller I mean a foot a foot smaller it's you're not gaining that much you know to to 20 by 24 I mean it's it's okay well just I mean I have the information I wanted that so thank you for that but just again like I stated earlier given that this is an oversized lot big as it is uh I'm I'm not crazy about going from you know 30% coverage to 37% coverage I'd like to see some effort to try to get that down a little bit is there is there anything we can do within the patio itself to and drainage wise to keep basically the the patio area contained within its own chamber system like an open graded base anything that drained you know from the patio or anything would would stay within the you know itself and not have to affect any of the sizes of the patio or the walkways or anything a three-foot walkways you know we can make that work but I I'd like to really try to keep the patio size the same uh I I kind of leave that open for comment from the engineer or engineer because I'm not really sure I mean you basically saying that we do some sort of containment system um do you want me to jump in maybe uh like a permeable paer system just so you have a big you have a big Stone base and it reduces the runoff from the actual P area or because I don't I mean the survey obviously doesn't really show the Topography of the site so we don't really know where it drains I don't know if it drains to the West towards the adjacent property towards the street um maybe installing some type of French strain around the perimeter or something just to try to collect that runoff but if you wanted to maybe I don't know what type of pavers you were going to use um but maybe a permeable P system or something like that um if the board feels that's better right I we can use a um a permeable poly sand too that drains as well the same type of application um yeah um that's why I could I mean there's really no information about what you guys were using um so if you can maybe just give a little bit more information about that um and if the board's open to it if if they can use a different type of material or something that drains better or something to help collect the run off along the perimeter um maybe give a little insight about topography where everything is draining um just so they are a little bit more comfortable um that'll probably help yeah I mean right now it's it's I mean it's besides the where the where I have the trees along the fence line um you know it it kind of drops off there uh towards you know the um see here where the where the the row of trees are that's kind of where the water you know goes now um it's a little bit lower of a spot there so it drains South towards the the adjacent property yeah so I guess all that all the run up from the walkway and the patio will be will drain South so obviously the plantings might help a little bit um but probably installing some sort of some sort of French drain or drainage system Maybe in front of those just to collect some of the runoff M so uh can I interject just real quick uh since we've been living here a few years the the drainage may go yeah somewhat um towards the neighbor's side but actually we actually had a drainage issue on this side where the the patio may be built and it actually primarily at least on I guess one half of the yard really goes towards the driveway and towards the street um so I don't know if that helps with uh well uh you putting this patio in are you going to be changing the grades in anyway or you because usually pavers you don't want to break it I don't know how yeah no it's GNA pretty much stay you know obviously pitch away uh from the dwelling yeah yep yep and uh and then the walkways um the the 17t walkway there that's going to have two step UPS there two six in Rises so cuz it you know it drops off a little bit there to get that grade to change okay so well I guess in the proposed conditions primarily where is everything going to be pitched south or to the driveway is are going to be is it there break like you're saying there is now I could pitch it towards the driveway all towards the driveway that side that side of the yard there and towards the you know the uh is that the East there okay yeah I mean obviously away from any adjacent properties just to sure yep prevent any issues there but then also installing some drainage measures would probably be the best whatever you guys whatever you guys decide on if if this is approved you can it could be a I condition that you guys submit those for approval review and approval okay Mr CRA any further question no I'm good I'd like to hear what the other board members uh want to ask about and see okay uh Mr aralan uh Tom again our Tom what would have to be taken off of the uh patio to get us to the 35% how many feet they're over by 220 square feet so what would you have to take off to get to 220 uh well the patio's 500 so you'd have to Lop off about half of the P so give or take uh so instead of 25 feet it would be like 13 feet or 14 feet and okay so okay So So that obviously doesn't make too much sense I mean why why would you put it up with that small of a patio is there anything else looking at this property that could be uh get us down from from what they're looking where they are to that 35% do you see anything that stands out to you if I mean if we're not touching the patio there's you know the driveway is fairly new the house was recently renovated so I I mean the only thing that I see is you could shrink the walkways down to 3 feet I mean we're talking about picking up square feet here and there so you could shrink the walkways down to three square feet excuse me three feet in width the the the walkway we'll say to the right that makes the L shape you could probably eliminate most or all of that and just have a very small connection from the driveway to the patio you know again we're talking about fractions of a percent then that leaves you with the I and actually the way it's it's drawn it's its Dimensions show 25 by 20 but it's actually shown at 25 by 18 I just measured the whole thing so the 610 is accurate it's just the dimensions are a little off so again what you see visually is actually 25 by 18 in terms of the grade out area so you know it it it'd be hard to get that you know reduce it by even a percent um even what I just talked about but I mean that would get you closer to 35% so okay you know the applicant it sounds like they're willing to put in some screening and drainage you know as uh benefits will call okay all right uh you answer my question thanks Tom Miss ban um so you're saying it's it's not 20 by 25 so the dimensions meaning the arrows and the numbers say 20 by 25 but the actual we'll call it rectangle is actually 25 by 18 okay I was just looking at 20 by 25 and I I thought a 20 by 20 patio would be adequate um but if you're saying it's already 18 um but I I it looks like a large patio to me I I feel like something can be taken off that's up to the board I I mean applicant should yeah maybe I guess we'll go through the board's comments and if the applicant wants to make a proposal based on the comments I think that would be up to them yeah let's continue with the the board's review um councilman thank you uh somebody mentioned the house was recently redone how recently was it redone I don't know I was just looking quickly on uh Google uh what do you call it Google Maps so it looks like probably within the last four or five years it's when we moved in we moved in September 2020 um they fully renovated on an existing foundation in late 2019 into mid 2020 was was any uh land coverage added uh at the time was the house expanded at all it used to be uh actually Mike who's the neighbor here probably knows I think it used to be more it was a much smaller footprint if that's your question the original house and then now it's expanded to where where it is today okay and was it you guys who expanded it or was it a no no that's we we had no say into what was built as you see on this surve driveway the dwelling we didn't have any say on that was it a contractor who who redid it we bought the property when after it was already done so I don't know if it was a contractor who did it or what his title was um right um so just just a couple of comments I guess this is again one of those situations where I think we have to take a case by casee basis and location makes a difference um beyond the proposed patio there um I guess I guess to the um West of you is there another house yes okay is that house lower than yours or at the same elevation I don't know if I can answer that confidently I don't know the exact uh right if you walk out of your driveway and you make a left are you walking downhill uphill or is it level seems about level um the water drainage again because we had a recent water issue goes down our driveway and goes east towards the summit and Hillside intersection towards the drainage there um all I have no no further questions right now I'll listen to what everybody else says but I tend to agree with what was said I think the patio is a little big it can probably be uh uh paired down a little bit to try to make it uh more friendly for purposes of the drainage and so forth thank you okay thank you uh Mr Mayor yes uh I'm looking on Google Earth right now and um to Summit it goes down to bogert and um it drops to me about 20 feet isn't that true Mr if you walk from Summit down um downhills Side Avenue your property is pretty flat but immediately at the end of your property it drops significantly isn't that true I think um yeah when you there is going down to Boger there is a a drop off but at least when I walk it it seems like it's beyond our property line I guess I don't know but but yes I think what you're saying is definitely correct so my concern is your your current lot is um 9,562 Square fet an average house is 7,500 and we see a hardship of when we have lots that are under size your your lot is significantly oversized it appears to me to be 27% bigger than 7,500 when I do the numbers n 9,726 divided by 7,500 I get a 1.27 which which means it's 207% bigger so um you're on an oversized lot and you're asking for a patio which I I totally get everybody wants the patio and you certainly want to finish your home and it's you're bought the home as is but to what I'm seeing it looks like at your property line it begins to drop off to the next house so um and the patio is being put between your house and that drop off so I I'm not comfortable with the 37.3% of a 97 9,726 um square foot lot I I think you need to reduce that at least I I would need for you to reduce it if I was going to vote Yes um if you were at the bottom of the hill instead of the top of the hill I would probably be you know less inclined to you know ask you to do that but you're on Hillside you you're at the top uh Summit drops off to bogert and um we have to be concerned about your neighbors as well as um you know it's an oversized lot with a large Improvement going from 30 uh. 87 to 37.3 so those are my comments whatever they're worth um and that's it thank you thank you uh Mr peer thank you uh yeah first of all just um for the applicant for the applicants benefit just to put this briefly in context this is a recurring issue it's an issue that is always of concern to this board uh it's it's the issue of flooding and drainage and so whenever we're confronted with this type of situation where there's going to be an increase in in coverage of of property it creates questions about where's the water going to go basically and we've had meetings where people from the community have come to us and very vehemently complained that um there's there's flooding uh in in the streets there's flooding in their basements and so this is you know so I say that only because I feel like you need to know we're not picking on you but that this is a a serious issue for the entire community and that's why um we're all kind of harping on this question of coverage and drainage and where's the water going um because that it's it's an issue for the entire burrow so that being said you did mention briefly in passing that you you had a water issue recently yes and I'm just wondering what the nature of that water ISS that was um our Builder uh was AO I don't know real estate agent but he he worked closely with so anyways um him and George when they put in our um seitch pit did not connect our gutter drains correctly to them so it was a builder error essentially so water was backing into our gutters um fix it's now since been fixed um and so but that's when I noticed where the water was going when we had because those two SE pit pits on that side yard were draining those gutters on that side of our property where the patio is being proposed here so understood I got it yeah duly noted I am also concerned about water just like the whole town of Riveredge is too after that experience um so that's why I think uh as my Tom AR I mentioned I think we're definitely willing to consider something like a French drain or to pair off some part of the patio that's um I think Tom was trying to do some calculations but but yeah we're we're definitely um listening and and hearing what's what the board yeah so I so I don't I'm not going to belabor the point I would just say that that's that's something we need to hear from you some something specific um that either involve at least from my point of view either involves shaving sufficient um uh Dimensions off of the patio uh making the patio significantly smaller uh which I realize you don't want to do but you know in the context of what we're talking about one option would be to make the patio significantly smaller or um put in sufficient drainage that would be substantially more than what you know what what the property has now um and that would you know give Comfort to the board members I mean I personally I think that if you did either one of those things I I could support the application um but I know other board members might lean towards reducing the patio some people might lean towards more drainage um to me any kind of uh meaningful revision to your application that would address the concern um would be acceptable to me so so since I'm hearing that you're open to that um I I have no further questions okay thank you Mr prer um I'm going to Echo the same sentiments that have been echoed thus far by the board members in terms of concerns with the the size of the patio and the drainage issues as well so don't no need for me to go um reiterate those but um what um I think given what you've heard at this point and by way of comment from the board uh to your existing application um what I'd like to offer to you at this point is is if you'd like to um consider your options at this point perhaps uh revise your plans and give some thoughts to you know what you've heard this evening and um and reconsider your application and making the necessary or appropriate revisions that um would address the concerns that you've heard tonight um I mean we can also move forward with with taking a vote as well but you know you have the option if you'd like we can continue your your application to allow you some time to go with your um uh with your contractor and sit down and figure out um what your uh what your options are at this point um so it want it takes a lot of effort to get in front of you guys so uh I don't necessarily I don't know if we would have to like resubmit everything if if like we continue tonight and then you guys said No Yeah Yeah from a procedural aspect what we would do is we we'd continue your application you wouldn't have to Ren notice anybody um just when you have new plans you just have to resubmit those for the board to review we we rescheduled you for on the agenda right I understand um and so I guess before our time ends here though because I mean again I heard everyone's comments and we appreciate them and um the drainage type of I don't know if Tom My Tom wants to chime in but uh we're definitely willing to install the the drainage that would help offset any additional um potential water I guess from this I don't know if uh we should just resubmit I I don't want to waste anyone's more time if if it's just going to have to depend on whatever we resubmit that M St would you be willing to make any reductions to the patio tonight is it or would you be willing to go down to 20 by 18 or something like that um yes we'd be willing to pair down I think Tom what what were you thinking I I was looking at possibly 22 by 18 and cutting the walkways down to three foot so what does that put us at numbers the patio would sh would would would drop down to 39 396 square feet and then we would just have the walkways does that bring us to 35% no but if it went to 35% they wouldn't the they wouldn't have to be before the board I got that yeah I think it's pretty close to 35 if my it' probably be about 521 square feet approximately so yeah I think we'd be willing to pair down and then um install the the French Trin I think Tommy you were saying came off but yeah so the proposal reduces it by about 1% is that fair to say from 610 to about 521 on a 95 square foot lot y give or take yeah so it would be 36.3% improved lock coverage approximately yeah plus plus a French drain is that what you're saying okay Mr odal is there anything specific specific that you would recommend from a drainage standpoint or is it more of a field field review um I think I mean obviously they tried to explain the topography this had as best as they could um if if they are going to revise the dimensions and they're going to implement some drainage for us to review if they can show how they're going to pitch the patio just to kind of show where everything's going because obviously you want to if it's all if it's all going to go to one corner you want to put the drainage infrastructure there um but it's really up to what they want to what they want to install but just clearly showing it is is more or less the key aspect here and would you be willing to work with the burrow engineer to determine the location of any additional drainage mitigation such as a French drain or of course and uh Mr if you mentioned you had SE pit pits on the property already yeah because I think when the home was rebuilt um it was per regulation to put those in yeah that's probably yeah um those are located you said where the patio is or no not there do you know approximately where uh I can since they just did that work recently I can so it is approximately you see where the the last tree would be yeah so the two of them kind of start right around there um probably offset about 8 feet in from the fence property line similarly from the top property line something like that and they're side by side okay Mr chair have a quick question on on those locations because they're they're kind of far from the uh the house itself do when you get like heavy rainfall do you get any ponding in the backyard at all or in that area there or it's a question to me me sorry I thought you said chairman okay uh I'm not the chair uh no we don't get pooling in our backyard there no okay Mr merman any comments from from you yeah I have a couple I'm sitting here listening I did visit the site and the rear yard pitches towards the West the drainage that you were talking about uh uh is the street drainage not the site drainage of the rear yard so the rear yard has a pitch um to the West um that's number one number two if um we need to give some guidance to the applicant if he's going to work with the burrow engineer um I I would say that What I Hear um maybe a number of 36 uh percent um would be uh might be considered and you that would be uh with uh a French drain system that goes into the current seage spits that's the way I'm looking at it right now um from where we stand and at that point if they came back um I I would recomend uh that they uh have a fixed percentage with the drainage and let them rearrange their um patio walkway system whichever way they want it um that's that's what my thinking is right now we're wasting a lot of time um with numbers and I think we need some guidance and I think that might be the consideration you want that's the way I look at it Mr chair okay does that work for you Mr red yes yes okay any other questions or comments from the board so basically we would put this in suspension until the applicant works out his situation with the burrow engineer office is that what we're looking at I mean I think the other thing we could I mean M styley I believe we could we could take action on it this evening subject to the board bar per Engineers input is that correct yes we we have done that in the past um where the if the applicant agrees to reduce the the patio as described to 22 feet by 18 ft and the walkways to three feet in width um and install the the drainage working with the burrow engineer then the the percentage of the improved loot coverage um would be based off of those reductions even if we don't have the exact number right now um we could still take action okay comments from the board on that so just to be clear then they wouldn't have to come back they would just have to meet those uh they would just have to comply comply with submit all the Revis all the updated plans showing those changes that we discussed today submit them to the burrow engineer um and work with him to determine the location of the drainage if the board wants to proceed tonight we could do it like that mayor uh Marina if we decided to go with Mr merman's suggestion of not not delineating the shape of the patio but simply saying 36% and drainage could we also do that yep we can do that too so if that's what the board want says okay based on what all the reductions that were discussed tonight the their the applicant would be permitted to up to 36.3% improve lot coverage they can decide where to cut we did that with the last applica with an application at the last meeting so that's that's possible too Mr merman were you 36.3 or 36 um my I I said I said 36 but 36.3 um would be acceptable um the big the big thing is um we're slightly over the 35 um we're concerned about drainage um and we've got that taken into account um especially putting it underground which into a seage fit system which is ideal and the other thing we have to discuss is the screening and that that's the way I'm looking at it um if we just gave if we just gave the applicant the parameters and they could shape and twist this patio walkway system whichever they want as long as they came within be a lotted coverage that we would specify um that's fine let him work it out with the burrow engineer if I could Mr chairman I I agree with Mr merman for instance one of the things I thought maybe this would not be interesting to the uh to the applicant but if they shifted the patio um towards the North or towards the driveway they wouldn't need the L on that side and if they kept the other side as three feet but Mr merman's right now we're getting into offering all sorts of construction advices and that's not our role I think if we go with 36 or 36.3 and we go with Mr merman's which I strongly feel the French train or whatever system so that it doesn't it doesn't create a roll down the hill towards their neighbors to the West because Hillside does drop off greatly after their property I could feel comfortable with that I don't know how the other members of the board feel but I could feel comfortable with that comments on the board I I tend to agree with Mr merman's approach as well I could feel comfortable with that also I'm also in agreement and I which when I add this is an inherited problem we're having when these Builders are coming in and expanding these homes and they're maxing them out and then when the people come want to add something they can't because the builders already maxed out the property and the homeowners have no idea that this happened uh when they buy it but these These are also local Builders right like these are builders that keep doing the same not always not always this one was this one was and it's a local Builder and this keeps happening and look I've got no problem with this application these people they seem very nice I certainly want them to have a patio but if this keeps happening and then people just keep coming to us and we keep saying yes okay you know because you're nice people we want you to have your patio the builders will keep doing this over and over and over that's really my problem with all of this so you know as far as this application I I concur with what the mayor said and what Mr merman said uh but at some point like some thought is going to have to be given to this because it just keeps happening the builders are like don't worry about it we're going to Max it out and you're going to go to the board and the board's going to say yes and it's just going to keep happening the houses going to get bigger and these problems are going to get bigger Dario I agree 100% and maybe maybe the council needs to look at reducing the uh the overall coverage so that uh we do have some more flexibility when these people come in well that that that would have to come as as a proposal or a recommendation from this uh board uh and then the council will be able to act upon it at that point but I think it has to come from this board so you guys have to get together and talk about it Mr castlin maybe you can put together a subcommittee for next year to look at this because this is an issue that we're dealing with consistently and it angers me because I look at these poor homeowners and I know that they you know they want to enjoy their backyard and they want to put a little deck back there and they're handcuffed because the builders didn't inform them that they already maxed out the property Fair points their points okay um so Mr chairman what do we want to do well first thing uh just want to make sure that U the applicant's clear on on the proposal that's being uh presented here and if there's any objection to that for what what Mr Murman suggested again 36.3 in French drainage or appropriate drainage per the bur Engineers is what I'm hearing and yes I agree we agree okay okay with that said any further comments questions from the board we need needs open to the public briefly I don't think there's anybody in in attendance but we have to go through the procedures um I'll make a motion we open to the public thank you Mr CR in favor I I any opposing obain we're now open to the public for comment on this application only any and there's nobody out there right Marina there's no attendees but there are some members who are listed as panelists that I don't know if they are wanting to speak but you can raise your hand up there a looks like the hand up uh Perillo there's a hand up a hand up um I I know one of my neighbors is on Michael pescator but I don't know if he no need to speak if you don't have a comment or question but you can sorry my mouse was hanging over it and that's where the hand I apologize all right I think I think that's that's fine so I'll take a motion to close the public please so move so move okay thank PE Mr AR Kellan all in favor iosing obain okay we are now closed to the public on this application Mr merman okay you ready for a motion uh we'll look for a motion on the application please okay um I'm gonna make a motion and um we'll we'll have to massage it if necessary um I'll make a motion regarding the angel IP residence um 929 Summit Avenue on Riveredge lock 202 Lot 29 um the mo makes the motion Grant uh approval for the following the exist front yard setback of 24.6 feet on Summit plus the 19.5 ft on Hillside Avenue is noted and formally legalized um the um improved light coverage um shall not exceed 36.3% um and the layout shall the layout of the walkways and the patios um with drainage shall be determined by um working with the borrow Engineers office and the installed uh walkways and ptio should conform to the minimum applicable setbacks of the burrow [Music] the drainage to be worked out with um the borrow engineer shall consist of a French drain system to what appears to be the existing um seepage pits in the rear yard and the routing and the stations and all um details will be um as said worked out with the borrow engineer um the applicant shall install some privacy screening um to provide uh not only the family privacy but the neighborhood privacy of of the deck and the questions by the B engineer and his report regarding um drainage and so forth um and it he worked out let me see if I got those they [Music] yeah yeah yeah the comment the uh applicate will provide the soil renable calculations so on as indicated in the costal letter I think that's what I got so far Mr chairman good did I miss anything do we have to massage anything or I'd like to hear from the applicant if I missed anything no no okay so with that um we can have a second on a motion and vote on it and um clear a deex tonight look for look for a second please second than Mr feffer Mr steinley thank you Mr Mayor yes Mr kln yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes Mr cray yes Mr AR Kellan yes councilman Keno yes all right the motion passes okay y congratulations congratulations than you thank you everyone right moving along our next item on the agenda this evening on a new business is uh Katherine and Nicholas Sartori property is 131 Kensington Road Block 815 Lot 2 the application is seeking approval for development of a two-story addition to an existing dwelling and additional improvements to the property I believe the applicant is here this evening and I think we also I think your architect is here as well good evening that is correct good evening everyone uh again Nick Sartor my wife Katherine this is our two- week old Lily and we also have a soon to be 5-year-old Natalie also living with us so uh we moved into River Edge a little over 5 years ago sorry before you sorry before I'm gon have to swear everyone you please raise your right hands do you swear affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes yes all right and Mr Appel yes um could you please um provide your background and qualifications and your business address uh my name is Lawrence l r ance Appel principal of Appel Design Group Architects where located in Floren Park New Jersey I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering as well as a MERS in architecture I'm here this evening um to be admitted as an expert in architecture my license is current um um in addition to my license I'm ncarb certified and I've appeared before numerous boards um in the surrounding I don't believe I have appeared before the borrow before but I have appeared in hackin sack newer Barfield Way pramis Bloomfield marown um bunch of other municipalities as well thank you question any questions from the board on Mr appel's qualifications okay great thank you all right uh Mr Sartor first of all congratulations on your newborn thank you we'll turn the table turn the floor over to you if you would for the benefit of the board if you could give us um uh information on your application what you're seeking by way of relief on the board yeah absolutely so uh sorry for jumping the gun a little bit there but um you we recently moved to Riveredge about 5 and a half years ago um we are looking to continue to actively grow our family as you can see so we're hoping to expand a little bit upon our current dwelling and we've been working with Larry from Appel Design Group and we're going to turn it over to him to give a little bit more information and some testimony about what we're looking to accomplish here okay um great um what I'm going to do is just for purposes of um I'm going to uh share my screen if that's uh is my screen shared do you see the drawing yes yes yes okay doesn't seem highlighted right now but it's uh it's the uh architectural drawing there we go yep okay perfect um so um I'll get um I guess um first is um what I have in front um of the uh panel right now we have um um architectural drawings they five sheets they were originally submit submitted and dated 81623 um we have a separate scaled survey also dated 81623 um which was taken from the original survey prepared by uh mono surveying um which was uh dated 8123 and a supplemental zoning chart that was added um at the request of the zoning officer in their uh letter of non-compliance um that is dated 92223 um I have no um additional exhibits um do I need to tag anything or refer to these otherwise all submitted previously um all have been submitted previously correct okay then we're good did you say the date did you say the date the last revision date was 816 88 1623 for on C1 I have eight n that's what I have too okay then we we'll have to mark these then um 81623 so the drawings you have are dated 89 80923 um are you looking at the revision date yeah yeah where your cursor is the date there reads 80923 H and that's the case for all the the prints we have for all the you know for co1 through pb3 um I'm I'm not quite sure if that was um and I'm not sure what's different so um I guess I will consider these exhibits um I don't know that anything um material has changed on here so um I I'll just Mark the this packet as exhibit A1 the addition the three the three items that I just enumerated yes and I'm assuming that you'll I'll need to submit PDFs or hard copy of this back to you yes please okay not a not a problem drawing okay um the um project um um consists of a modest size um um the existing house a modest size um two-story home that was uh built in 1939 that was uh information that was provided by um the homeowner um with three bedrooms to Bass the existing house has an attached garage which is undersized and I'm going to pull up just the um the existing drawings which are on pb-1 they'll show the existing um drawings um the existing house in attached garage which is undiz it really can't fit a normal siiz car and as you can see there is no way to get in from the garage into the home without walking out the garage door but it's really just too tight doesn't work so the application proposes to convert this existing attached garage into needed living space and then add a new uh single car um garage with a second floor Edition so it is a two-story Edition that we're proposing and I'm showing that that's this area of the new onecar garage I'm referring to drawing pb-2 and right above that is a new primary bedroom suite so um the other portion of this project and I'll just to summarize is um some new all um facade um elements we are taking an existing um Portico and we are creating a new front porch on on the home uh a new decor deorative Bay some new decorative uh cross Gables and all these were to create a more contextural and upscale appearance while keeping the scale and style of the surrounding neighborhood now let's I'm going to skip to the cover page that shows the survey and I'm going zoom in just a little bit so you can see that a little bit better so um the lot is undersized by 86 squ ft the existing um lot is 7,414 square ft where um this Zone does require 7500 square feet um this is all exaggerated because it's an existing um uh corner lot condition and that has create created several existing non-conforming set setback conditions however the area of the proposed addition um still complies and is under the maximum allowable lot coverage um so that's an important um um element to add for those not familiar um this property um there's um a element that's circled over here um people refer to this as the koi pond house because of that small um uh Koi pond in the front so um again this has existing non-conforming front rear yards um with a two-story addition which is at the right side of the house um and um we're looking at this upside down on the configuration but um the um addition is on the right side and it was sized to accommodate um the garage Edition including access um with an interior stair to get into the house which is um we believe is kind of necessary appropriate and customary um the proposed garage is projecting further into the front yard to allow functional depth to the garage because in the current configuration you really can't fit a car in here so principal points of the addition we wanted to connect the new garage to the house original garage was attached but no way to get into the house we wanted to make it functional living space was both Limited in the house and I'm going to um refer back to drawing now pb-2 that shows the interior layout so the living space was both limited and did not flow um well with um uh furnishings and for everyday life we've expanded the kitchen we've added a powder room there was no um powder room or bathroom at this level um we have on the second floor we built directly over the garage and this worked out very well we were able to add a bedroom so this went from a three-bedroom house to a four bedroom house and we Redi redesigned the primary Suite which now has its own bathroom there was only one uh bathroom um on the existing so the other improvements I'm going to Point again to the front of the house we have the front porch which is roofed but otherwise open an accent bay window um that is where the um front garage was um two accent um cross Gables decorative Gables that are constructed over the main roof and the intent of all these was to add visual interest um improvements to the existing house and primarily decorative as well as to enhance architectural interest so the principal points of the variance here this is a corner lot it's under sized it's in the R1 Zone um as I mentioned uh 7 7,141 Square ft where 7,500 ft is required we are fully conforming with the maximum lot coverage in in the zone we are um at only 20.24% where 25% is permitted um however in spite of this undersized lot um configuration we worked very hard to stay um at the maximum allowed impervious lot coverage of 35% and that was the subject of the zoning chart that we resubmitted to the town this is one of those um other documents um I'm assuming this document is in your package um dated 92223 the supplemental zoning chart no I don't I do not have that okay we'll just this is part of the those those three pieces that are the exhibit in here is it is identical to what's on the drawing the only thing we did is the request of the zoning officer we had um uh broken down all of our calculations showing how we got to the 35% and those are all enumerated on this chart in here the proposed building the accessory shed the front porch and steps the rear patio with porch the driveway and walkways um and tabulating that and um we are just um under that 35% and um that was part of the intent and the design so I'm gonna mark this sheet as exhibit A2 okay so so we have an A A A1 is the the first two and and A2 is the separate scaled survey I have that one so I don't need to mark that but just the first thing and the first document and then this one okay so if I may Larry and Marina this chart is included in the land use board zoning application on page seven okay um I thought I thought it was submitted but you're you're um um thank you for clarifying that um but um regardless it's one of the exhibits so it's part of the application um um right now okay so okay um in addition so um let's talk about the other pieces in here the front yard rear yard are um both existing non-conforming the rear yard setback is existing to remain 15.23 feet where 25 feet is required um the pro proposed addition aligns at the rear so that it did not we are not requesting any additional relief at the rear of the house the existing payer patio was included in the calculation for impervious um cover and no additional work is proposed at the rear but the um um The Patio is existing non-conforming and that is located closer than 5 feet um to the rear property line the front yard setback is reduced to accommodate the necessary depth for the garage so 21.8 2 feet where the existing non-conforming uh front setback is 22.96 feet and 30 feet is required in the ordinance so um in addition we've um proposed a 5- foot deep covered front porch this is a decorative element um this was included and contributes to the impervious coverage and encroaches into the existing non-conforming front yard um the existing entry Portico which was located I'm going to go switch back to the survey so that you can see this a little bit more clearly um the center area there was a small entry Portico that was centered on the house and we've um taken that and redesigned it and extended it to each side to um accent the front body of the house architecturally so um this is um 5 feet deep so um the existing front entry Portico had a front setback of 19.63% um of the existing non-conformity of the front setback however in this case we are only projecting 5 feet beyond the existing front facade which is existing non-conforming and the area of the front porch and steps are modest at 161 square feet um we believe and and we'll go on and describe this a little bit more that um we believe this element is important not only for the architectural design of the house and I will kind of uh go back to the uh architectural elevation and it will show what this does um while it does require additional relief we believe these kind of elements provide both architectural interest and help to Demas the central body of the house and I think provide the um contextural um elements that are um both appropriate and found in other areas of town so we believe that this is a good addition to the house um this new addition for the um for the house that's built um in front um so the two-story Edition complies with a building height um existing to remain you can see this portion of the house is a little under the existing uh roof line the new addition meets the applicable sidey setback requirements and the impact from the front of the house we believe is only positive the pro um proposed architectural improvements were carefully integrated um it um matches and aligns successfully with the architectural design and will have um minimal impact on the neighbors I would actually say that the neighborhood would benefit greatly by the enhanced curve appeal and the aesthetic um improvements without any known detriment um again the front is already nonconforming the additional architectural diversity will only enhance the streetcape and positively impact the um mass of the house uh the owners plan to also add some new Landscaping so along the foundation areas of the house in here and under the bay window um they're proposing some um um landscaping and this was an item that was um uh addressed in the engineering report or questioned in the engineering report so we wanted to indicate that we are um the applicant will be providing some um new Landscaping as well um another item was exterior lighting um what is proposed in here are small residential access and fixtures they're typically um LED um these days but um this will have the equivalent of 100wt um light bul um and this is consistent with with what is customary and appropriate for these type of houses and there's not going to cause um excessive glare or lighting to spill out over onto other properties um the proposed house will be um clad with um instead of um conventional siding the owner has um elected to use um a shingle um style siding and trim and most likely this will be a deep green color and we're providing um Stone along as an accent along the base of the house again as as an architectural accent the um in our opinion we believe that that the property is adequate size to handle the addition um the um addition is modest in size and not out of character with other homes in the area um as I mentioned we did receive the engineering review letter from Costa engineering we have reviewed that I've addressed um I believe most of these comments um during the testimony um there um one of the items I did not address was uh storm water so um um we will address um the um storm waterer um will satisfy the comments and address these regarding storm waterer management directly with the engineering department when we um uh permit the project um as well we will also address and file a soil movement application where applicable um however due to the minimal disturbance and um this is really will be a minor category in here the additional foundation wall and the footings will probably be under you know certainly under 10 cubic yards and uh there's no new basement then those um basements are typically what would generate um large amounts of soil movement so um in consideration of the above testimony and the attributes of its application we believe in our professional opinion that the requested relief can be granted without negatively impacting the neighborhood neighboring Properties or creating any detriment to the public good I'm complete with my presentation okay thank you for that Mr Appel Mr barons sorry I was trying to find the meat button um thank you for that let me just get to my letter to uh frame the the Varian is being requested again so just to reiterate um there is uh I'm referring to my letter dated September 11th 2023 there's a um a front uh front setback uh variants being requested it's a corner lot uh as was stated I'm just trying to make sense of my comments here the first comment actually pertains to the rear yard setback so as was stated by the applicants architect the existing dwelling has a non-conforming rear yard setback of about 15.2 feet they're seeking to maintain that with the the new addition again having a nonconforming setback of approximately 15 feet or 25 feet is required um there's a front yard setback variants being requested primarily from the Kensington Road Frontage uh where there's an existing non-conforming setback of 22.96 Ft the new addition will have a non-conforming setback of 21.8 to feet and the porch uh and miss Mr Appel please clarify will the porch have a setback of 18 feet or 18 feet 4 in 18 um I believe it's 18 feet okay because the the plan shows the plot plan shows 18 Fe 4 in and I think the table shows 18 feet so just as a point of clarification but you think it's 18 feet um I believe it should be 18 feet that's correct okay so I guess that's the request um and then I identified a couple of existing non-conforming conditions one being the existing sheds non-conforming setbacks of about one foot where four feet are required and also the existing patio which has a setback of 1.3 feet from the rear lot line where five Feet's required again those are existing um conditions um Mr Appel addressed the the coverage calculation issue and do the plans show the proposed uh AC units um they so the the AC units are currently and I will um I'm going to refer to the photograph because I think that's the best way to show them there is a [Music] um here it is um on Photo number five this is on drawing c-02 you can see a little low um um screen um vinyl fence over here that um right behind that vinyl fence is the AC um condensing unit that's the existing one okay that's correct is a new one proposed um for this there there may be a um supplemental so that that that unit we have not really dug into this it's either going to be a replace unit or a supplemental but the supplemental unit since it's only going to be for a small area of the addition would probably be a um a mini split which has a very small condensing units about a third the size of a regular uh AC unit right all right so let me just to frame the issue um typically we would not permit uh AC units in the front yard which you know where it's currently located would constitute a front yard um the ordinance is it's technically silent on on the units themselves so we we consider them accessory structures which again aren't permitted in front yard areas and have to be set back at least four feet from side and rear lot line so anything new would have to comply with that I just want to make that yeah clear so so in this particular case what what you're suggesting is the is that any new unit we would need to install either on the um side um where the garage is or at the rear right to the west of the house or the south of the house okay I think that um we would be agreeable to that okay all right uh I mean beyond the testimony that's been off off I I don't have much for the board okay thank you Mr before I get to Mr oddon I know we've passed our our our curfew with the board's Indulgence I would like to continue on with this application um this evening any objections from the board okay um Mr O'Donnell I'll turn to you then for perspective please from the engineering side all right um I believe Mr pal covered most of the stuff in our letter um one thing for me if I missed it the driveway is obviously being relocated because the the garage is being shifted over um just if you can add to the plans the burrow specifications obviously there's going to be need to be a new curb cut uh driveway apron and everything um so just have those bur specifications put into the plan for that and obviously a Road opening permit will be need for that um and then regarding the storm water uh obviously you need to mitigate the runoff from the proposed expansion of the dwelling um subject to our review uh so that should be added to the revision as well besides that no other comments okay we're we're we're we're um happy to have any condition with regard to the um um satisfying the uh engineering department with uh with drainage great all right thank you for that uh let me turn to the board now for questions um Mr arican I'll start with you if I may good for now thank you thank you sir Mr Craig yeah just just got kind of summary overview basically the only the variance you're requesting that's not already existing nonconforming that you're changing would be that front yard setback is that correct uh that's that's correct okay okay I'm good thank you thank you uh Mr Mayor I'm good thank you thank you Miss Bolan yeah I have no comments thank you uh councilman I spent so much time sitting in front of that house looking at that cor pond with my kids so thank you for leaving it in because I know the kids of riverid appreciate it I've got no comments it looks like a beautiful plan I hope you enjoy it thank you thank you Mr feffer no comments thank you thank you uh Mr merman one uh one question um the um there's about a three foot diameter Oak Tree in the um the the corner of the lot next to the shed does that tree remain or is that coming out so um let's uh let me look on the photograph so um that would be back over in this area um I'm going to confirm with the with the owner in here but I believe that this um that this uh tree should be should be fine okay um however um um I it is not it's not located on the survey so my concern in here would be only if the if it is too close to the um uh the addition and um the the roots and um viability of the tree would would suffer okay um and I would and I would also like to um uh the applicant is here just to get their concurrence on that because they may have already thought about that it was it was not on my radar yet yeah we're we're hoping to keep it if if we can we may have to trim it back a little bit but yes there there's another small tree that would have to be removed but the large oak tree we would like to keep it if we can good um the uh while was talking about Landscaping there's a a little one inch inch and a half um decidious uh tree at the corner um I don't know whether you're planing to leave that or remove it and I have a reason for asking the Dogwood tray if you're looking directly at the house to the lefts it looks like a dog great yeah we were planning on leaving as well okay uh it's uh very important that l a site uh traffic wise be maintained and that dog would uh I'm sure at this point would not interfere um good uh I would like to give a comment regarding architecture I think that that front porch full porch that you're adding is is a very much of a POS positive to both the dwelling in a neighborhood and the building almost cries out for an open porch like that I'm glad that you w it and I'm glad that the board is considering it that's my comments regarding for the architect Mr chair okay thank you Mr M um Mr appal if you would mind could you just stop sharing your screen for a second because the limitations on Zoom I got to make sure I have every body covered I think I do this way I can see the gallery again I think we've got everybody covered okay um I think at this point if there no further comments or questions from the board uh I'll entertain a motion to open I had one I had one question if you don't mind um in Mr Baron's letter in the first paragraph it mentioned there's a non-conforming setback of the roof of the proposed rear porch is that still so um so what we do have on here let me show you on the rear um there is a um um small you can go back to sharing your Shar the screen okay I apologize I I forgot that I just cut that off yep so um I'm now referring to the architectural drawings drawing pb-3 looking at the rear elevation there is a small um um and there's it's not brought down to Foundation there's a small um Portico um roof on brackets um hung from the building facade um so I I am not quite sure whether this would actually be considered an encroachment because it's just a hanging um roof projection in here um um no Foundation or otherwise and then there the comment also included the landing of that um well there the correct there is a there is a a a landing and uh platform and steps coming out the rear door okay I I'll try to clarify so I I think the distinction is or at least from my perspective the ordinance allows encroachments of front porticos of 5T and it's silent you know with respect to similar features toward the side and rear so the fact that it allows an encroachment in the front you know begs the question of you know why doesn't it for the back um the ordinance does allow for uh roof EES to encroach I think it's two and a half feet but again this I technically falls into the you know covered porch realm uh I don't have an objection with it it's an existing feature I think you're just you know modifying the configuration slightly so just as a point of clarification and because of what the ordinance currently allows or doesn't allow that was my interpretation so so we would respectfully request that um if this would be um considered in the um board's opinion to be um additional relief then we would ask for um U that this relief be um considered and granted as part of the approval okay thank you thanks for that um okay no no further comments or questions from the board uh I'll entertain a motion please to open to the public for comment on this application don't moved thank you m bowan second thank you Mr CRA all in favor I oppose and abstain okay we are now open to the public and at this time I don't believe we have anybody in the gallery there's no attendees there is one individual on the panel if they're interested in speaking Caitlyn Pella um K Caitlyn pello is the um is The Talented architect that works in my office and responsible for uh for this project so um she is on I was actually going to introduce her at the beginning and ask her to be um admitted and elevated but um since she didn't put her uh uh her camera on I did not want to impose upon her oh they're okay okay welcome all right with that we will I'll take a motion to close to the public please Mo thank you Mr C is there a second second thank you miss bowlan all in favor any opposing abstain okay we're now closed to the public on this application at this time I would look to the board for a motion on the application please if there is no further comment or questions okay Mr chairman I guess uh we'll give it a try here here um a motion for the S sator residents 131 Kensington Avenue River Edge block 8 15 lot two that the L use board Grant the following the rear yard setback of 15.3 for the existing um building plus the proposed addition proposed rear porch roof setback uh 11.7 feet and the landing setback of 11.2 feet um front yard setbacks along Kensington Avenue existing at 22 Point looks like 96 proposed twostory Edition at 2182 feet and proposed one story new front porch at 8 18 ft um the existing rear yard patio set back at 13 feet versus 5 foot required there is no improved lot um excess so that's out um the existing remaining shed and the re is going to remain um and it requires a uh it's one foot from the property lawn and requires a variance um that the applicant will also um perform to the uh and adhere to the applicable uh cost of engineering comments especially related to storm water and so forth um and a comment that Costa had was 22 foot driveway a width shall not be exceeded um and I wasn't quite sure if that was in the current plan that we're looking at or not it's it's actually 18 feet less 22 feet so the the proposed RightWay is going to be not not to exceed 22 feet is that correct that's that's correct and we would love to make it 22 feet wide but it would would have triggered um the coverage uh issues so we we elected to keep it at 18t okay so that's not initial so um we've taken care of that I think oh um yeah I think that's it Mr chairman I think you got it all any Miss ding um the only other thing was that if the air conditioning units are added they would comply with the buau code regarding location and setbacks um and that the sight line of sight would be maintained for that one for the corner um where there's an existing tree um okay do we need that as a as a condition we we can yeah okay fine all right except may may may may I um offer a comment I don't know whether because it's closed whether can make a comment or oh go ahead no go ahead um the the only clarification I would have is um that the approval for the AC unit if they were to replace or upgrade the existing AC unit that it could remain in the current place so they don't have to rewire or put new line set in but any new or supplemental unit would be uh placed accordingly is can can that be um how that condition is is worded um Tom I would refer to you to uh and I don't know was that part of the relief that was noticed um I you know certainly anything new I I think you're conceding would go in you know an approved location that's fine um if the board app approves this plan with the existing non-conforming conditions that may be a way to handle that if the board is so inclined to accept that condition we would just respectfully request that that that existing location um be um you know be accepted so that um if that unit if if the desire would be to replace that unit it would not trigger um a need for a variant I would I would just add you know subject to it being screened you know I think it's currently screened with fencing you know fencing or Landscaping I would say I I think that that is quite reasonable Mr chairman do we have to pull the board or can we just uh rule rule on this now well let me let me do it this way comments to the board any on that works for me okay Mr merman if you want to include that as part of your motion okay so be it um I think he spoke it quite well that um and I'll let Marina write that yeah so you could replace and rescreen with fencing or Landscaping the existing AC units um in their current location but anything new or supplemental would comply all right very good so Mo the motion is amended to include that okay thank you sir there a second from the board second thank you Mr Feer miss styley when you're ready all right Mr Mayor yes Mr klin yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes Mr Craig yes Mr Kellan yes councilman kigo I think he dropped off I think we just lost him we lost him well the motion passes regardless okay okay congratulations yes congratulations I'm looking forward to that uh that new dwelling with the front porch it's G to look nice congratulations on that on that beautiful new rivered Resident you got there thank you thank thank you thank you thank you very very much I appreciate the board uh um staying with it um past the 10 o'clock uh time absolutely have a good night thanks again for the just for the record on the agenda we did have an old business matter for kedit Investments LLC 298 Taft Road uh that application has been formally withdrawn by the applicant um pursuant to the applicable uh requirements that uh that will not be uh on any future agenda with that um unless anybody else has anything you new business um I appreciate your Indulgence in sticking around late tonight and also for for juggling the agenda a little bit and moving things around so thank you very much as always um that I'll take a motion to adjourn so move I'll do that second all in favor I hi any opposing obain we stand a Jour everybody thank you have a good night