good evening everyone this is the meeting of the municipal land use Board of the bur River Edge today is Wednesday April 10th 2024 the time now is 7:32 p.m. this meeting of the municipal L use Board of the burough River Edge is being held remotely and recorded via Zoom due to the burough council chambers unavailability and 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 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 copy of the agenda for this meeting was made available on the Burrow's website near the posting of meeting notice and included the dial in and login information during the public comment period of this meeting if you'd 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 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 6 on your telephone keypad you must state your name and address clearly prior to making a public comment with that I will turn it to miss steinley if you would kindly call the role please yes thank you Mr Mayor here Mr caslin here miss Boland is excused tonight oh Mr merman here just got on okay he is here okay he is here we're doing the r Mr Feer here Mr CR is excused tonight um Mr kigo is excused tonight councilman glass here here and Mr Gibbons here and Mr besed is excused tonight also present Mr and Mr dekin okay thank you much our first item of the agenda this evening is the approval of minutes a draft of the minutes for our March 13th meeting which was circulated uh to the board for review prior to this evening I open it to the board for comments or questions on the minutes M chairman I've reviewed the minutes and I have two minor cors um if Lisa Lisa can you hear me yes I can hear you I can hear you okay um on your page one okay the attendance um I think we I think the mayor was present I believe so he should be more oh he is pres no I think he was absent was he not uh I don't Marina all right let me pull up my the last meeting I think I was present for but I'll double yeah I think so I think so too okay the only meetings I've ever missed are meetings that had to do with the D variance of late yeah yeah okay that was the that was the 13th so that was the Dark Star so I this is this isn't last meeting this is two meetings ago that's true that's true that's true mayor was absent for that okay UMC okay so it was correct I was correct apparently yes okay I apologize oh no worries just want to get it right but if we go down to councilman glass I believe he was that excuse should be part-time um because he voted on the memorialization for the U the Cannabis I wasn't at that meeting the mayor and I weren't at that meeting the mayor no you well we recorded you as being a yes on the on the Cannabis of that meeting okay we're getting some feedback who's just if you're not speaking just mute yourself thanks I'm sorry um Mr mer um so two meetings ago I I didn't attend if it says that it's needs to be corrected if if there's some other reference to me it might be fine I'm not sure well okay just I'm just ping so for the for the March 13th meeting the mayor and the councilman were both abent excused and same with Mr yeah on the front yeah on front first page of the minutes the mayor needs to be marked as excused and then on the second page under memorialization you'll just have to eliminate the councilman's vote because he wasn't there so okay why now um one other little one um Lisa but it's important on your page four if you pick up page four the the middle the middle paragraph that starts with Miss bowan wanted to know if you drop down that if you five lines from the bottom you it reads expect of the building to which Mr Fetti responded 75 years that 75 years should be 75 to 100 years 200 okay yeah yeah that's very important because it's part of the resolution um and all and and that's it okay so then m m Mr chairman I with those corrections I I Rec commended the board approve them as as as noted okay thank you Mr merman any further comments questions from the board okay with the revisions just uh articulated I'll look for a motion to approve the minutes for our March 13th meeting so moved thank you Mr given there a second I'll second my own motion all all right Marina can you can we do that procedurally so I have a motion from Mr Gibbons and a second from Mr merman okay and I'll just call those eligible because there were some absences um Mr kaslin yes Mr merman yes and Mr peffer yes and Mr Gibbons yes okay then motion passes okay I'll make those changes this evening okay thanks Lisa all right moving moving on our agenda we're going into memorializations uh the first item is uh Dark Star Development LLC uh Mason Lazar and Paul and barado uh property is 335 Johnson Avenue block 1405 lot 3 uh resolution is for the denial of an application for amended preliminary and final site plan approval for parking variances a draft of the resolution was circulated to the board for review prior to the C's meeting I open it to the board for comments and or questions on the draft presented um Mr chman um I reviewed this one and let me just make sure I think we um might have a uh um no it's not on this one it's it's on bogit okay um so this one is okay um I find I find the um my review that it's very very thorough and covered the uh and covered the situation okay thank you Mr merman any other comments on the board questions the the only other comment I have to update the vote chart on this on this resolution I had an old one in the back of it so I'll I'll just update it with all the correct votes that's all I had Mr chairman on very good thank you any other comments from the board okay at this time I'll look for a motion to approve the resolution is drafted so moved thank you Mr GI is there a second second thank you Mr faffer miss steinley when you're ready all right thank thank you Mr caslin yes Mr merman yes Mr faffer yes and Mr gibons yes the motion passes and I only called those eligible okay thank you very much the next item under the memorializations the applicant is Suzanne Lett address is 820 bogert Road this is block 205 lot one resolution granting the variant for maximum improved lock coverage a draft of the resolution was circulated to the board prior to this evening's meeting and I open it to the board for comments or questions on the draft resolution Mr chairman um Maria do we have the same problem with the uh with the last page on this one with the councilman and Jim caran and Mr esito um it might have been if so I I'll change okay fine um other than that uh Mr chairman uh I find U the resolution has recorded to be U very acceptable and recommended for approval okay thank you Mr Murman any other comments questions from the board okay this time I looked for a resolution excuse me a motion to approve the resolution as drafted okay I got a first Mr Gibbons there a second second thank you Mr fer M dley thank you Mr Mayor yes Mr merman yes Mr peer yes councilman glass yes Mr Gibbons yes okay the motion passes and again I only called those eligible to vote okay thank you Miss styley we're going to move now into the next uh topic this evening under discussion uh our first item is the proposed ordinance to amend zoning regulations exhibit a the draft date of March 7 2024 and the continuance of the discussion of the ordinance amendments in order to submit recommendations to the burough Council so Mr merman I going to ask if you would kindly just take the lead on this particular item since I was absent from the last meeting and um I did get a chance to catch up on the uh transcript I would ask Indulgence to take the lead on this particular topic okay um and I'm gonna pass it off to Tom baren um because he was the sort of the spokesman and leading that discussion for the mayor and the councilman well thank you Mr Mor I I will give credit to Marina who's Bas you know she's really the author of the document and I think did the the latest update so I just want to give credit where credit is due so um Marina I well let me ask the board this um because there was some discussion last time should we simply focus on the coverage issues or go through the whole thing what do we want to chew on tonight do we want the whole thing run through the whole thing in the updates or just focus on one particular aspect for recommendation to council well I think the mayor's goal was to get a a final draft that he could recommend to the council the mayor and Council all right that is correct yeah yeah I think I think we're yeah I think we're gonna want to go through the whole thing Tom okay then Marina in that case can you share yep I'm just pulling up um I'm realizing I didn't share the edits from the prior meeting incor um now my computer is going slowly but I will be sharing my screen momentarily if I can get it up if you have a problem I can probably do it too so give you a minute so just just so we know there wasn't anything there wasn't anything sent to right I didn't miss anything from our last meeting and our last discussion no okay thanks I thought I sent it out but I um think I only sent it to a few of the team members okay so want make sure I didn't miss anything the I can get started just discussing on exhibit a which is the schu schule of zoning District requirements what we talked about at the last meeting was changing the improved lot coverage maximum to 37% from 35 for all the residential zones and then so Marina um that was a 5% with the reserve shall not be interpreted to provide an additional 5% of improved lot coverage but shall be included in the total calculation of the improved lot coverage so Marina the 37% was debated it was not uh affirmed some thought we should say with 35 some thought we 37 uh but if and please anyone on on the on the board correct me um a I believe the 5% as inclusive was agreed upon at least uh there was a consensus on that um but there was not a consensus on the 35 or 37 is that the recollection of the rest of the group I thought we had formed consensus around 37% I don't I don't think we necessarily voted on it and people were subject to changing their mind but I think most people expressed that they were comfortable with that I'm comfortable with 37% of those present here are comfortable with the 37% I I I'll just add there there was a a revelation I I think toward the end of the last meeting where we discussed um creating discounts essentially for certain types of paving materials as well as decking so that relates to the overall coverage so I guess the question is is it 37% % plus the discounts um what are those discounts um so I think that that idea had a lot a lot of traction okay and Marina you came up with um you know uh sample language for that um and so feel free to share that I guess the board can react to that I Mr Barons and I believe it was you know was a good suggestion that Mr given made that we recognize that there can be permeable ground surface coverings and I think it was with the 35 and allowing recognition of the discount for permeable ground surface coverings that was my understanding at the end we were either going to do 35 with the discounts or 37 without the discounts now even though this was my suggestion I guess I have a question about my own suggestion what what would fall into that that area you know so we I I know decking so are are there and I guess my my further question is you know what are other towns allowing so you know how I don't know Miss Miss D I don't know if you you were about to tell us some wording but um you know how do we how do we designate what is uh you know more permeable and and know there are certain you know certain brand or or you know how do we how do we designate that I guess is my simple question well um yes so my computer is not cooperating so I'll just ask Tom if you could share yeah I'll I'll offer so uh towns do it differently so you have some flexibility in how you want to do this and it runs the gamut I think it makes sense to create two categories one the first category would be decks unroof decks with no Paving underneath right so you have Treads which could be wood they could be compos it um with gaps in between that allow for water percolation and so um Hillsboro for instance discounts the whole thing doesn't count as impervious coverage whereas other towns might give 25% or 50% personally I think 100% may be on a high end um so but you have between 0% and 100% with examples in between um Hillsdale I think discounts it I think Ed do you know if does Hillsdale discount decks or just pavers both okay I don't quite I know favors for sure right so I I think in Hillsdale they give 205 I think 25% for decks I think or marina maybe you have that what I yeah I took the language from the Hillsdale um zoning ordinance because I think it provides a a good balance for the reduction um surfaces such as brick pavers l Stone slate or Timber with open joints shall constitute 50% of improved lot coverage and surfaces such as gravel loose stones and special pav stones with voids for grass shall con constitute 25% improved lot coverage so this would provide some people with some flexibility instead of putting a big concrete slab they could use pavers and get a reduction and does does that actually it it does allow maybe Mr glass you're the engineer Mr merman that does allow enough water to go through so it if you have pavers it shouldn't create water issues for neighbors and all that it should allow the water to go through is that accurate in most cases it depends on the product but that's the concept yes okay well I I would just add that there are different there's permeable pavers and then there's traditional pavers so some towns don't distinguish they just say pavers gets get a discount others will say they've got to be permeable pavers uh for I just saw tonight there's an ordinance in tenek that discounts I think it's 100% of permeable pavers they they Define permeable papers so again there's some flexibility so again you could create two separate categories decks and we'll call it Paving or you know atg grade surfaces um which could include gravel Stone uh so it's a question of what you want to include and if you want to distinguish between you know permeable uh which refers to the the product specifications or just simply say Stone paving materials I think where Mr given is going is we need some definitions okay right for different typ if there's a product that's going to be a that's going to be better then I'd rather give that person more credit than someone that's not using you know if there is a really per I'm not saying 100% but I would rather give that person more credit than you really you really can't refer a product percent or you're going for but you can't talk to you I think probably the better way the better mile poost is to say that the the material allows for a certain amount of drainage right defined that using the the engineering technical de yeah just yeah generic definitions yeah it's it's got to you know sorry it's got to basically allow for x amount of water to come through something for that whatever that is yeah yeah I'm good with that if if I might add my concern with using a discount for permeable pavers is that yes they're permeable right off the bat if you keep them maintained and cleaned but if people let them go astray they don't actually permeate water and so then it's an issue of yes there's all these permeable pavers but there's still in over time they become impervious um so that's why I don't I would lean against that can that be addressed though by a requirement you know have we have our standard requirements you know when we give uh relief that says that you need to maintain there's an ongoing maintenance obligation if you will and that the failure to to maintain is is subject to a violation yeah that could be a possibility then it becomes an Enforcement issue yeah we could also so that it doesn't become an Enforcement issue we could say um 75% of claim permability or 50% of claim permability so say a p is 80% permeable we could say well because there is a maintenance concern we're only going to give them 50% of the permeability and that creates language that then this body can address at the moment and the resident will know when they come to us because if we if we add an enforcement let's be honest it won't be enforced if could could there be something that you know because you're going to find out about it when The Neighbor starts getting water in their basement yeah so could there be something that if reported you know not that we're going to ask our zoning officer to go around and check these properties but if the neighbor resp you know reports it our zoning officer goes and says this you know this is not functioning could there be some sort of fine or expectation of having it fixed in a certain period of time or something like that is that is that realistic no it it gets very trick tricky yeah when you're yeah I would I would leave it to Marina and to Tom to uh uh expound on but basically then it becomes a subjective determination okay just throwing out you know I just throwing out an idea it's a good idea it's it's hard to measure performance over time is what it comes down to you know what how is it performing day one was it installed correctly versus we had a 100-year storm and 8 inches in one day and now they're seeing water and yeah it's a lot of you know you get into those situations and it gets hairy so it'd be better to avoid that situation frankly understood um so you know I brought up the issue of permeable pavers again you can choose to distinguish between those and others and and I I agree that the the performance dwindles over time if not properly maintained and my understanding is that maintenance is basically like vacuuming out the pores or sweeping up you know so the pores don't get clogged that's the issue is that the pores get clogged um and and yeah it it probably doesn't get done routinely in most circumstances but it's it's an option uh that some towns have relied on so so simply because I work with already D Roa on a regular basis and we get the complaints from residents a regular basis I think from an administrative point of view and an enforcement point of view it's much better just to say 50% or 75% or 25% of product claim and that then because enforcing whether it was taken care of correctly and then was this a 100-year storm in therefore we shouldn't be held accountable it it ties up our resources and we already operate on a skeleton crew uh you know when it comes to our full-time and part-time employees but you know this body can recommend what it wishes yeah I I don't think we're I think to the extent we can Lim MIT enforcement issues you know that's that's what we're what we're a while achieving the goals we're trying to achieve I think that's that's the Mantra but uh you know um on this note of permeable servfaces would this include a sport court that has I believe a lot of those have pretty big holes in them and allow water to go through or is that something we don't even want to get into if this body wants to consider that that's fine as again I would say that we would have to create a percentage of claim of permeability and use that H for the ordinance uh a um but my suggestion would be not to like I think we should regulate surfaces right not the function of the surface so like I mean we had in there like flag poles and and um sport like you were saying Ryan Sports courts I don't know what that means really like what are we regulating I think you know we want to maximize recharge right and we want to maximize use of permeable surfaces so let's just work around that like what's the surface and how are we going to regulate the ground surface covering you know instead of getting cuz like you said I mean one Sports Court could be totally different than another and they don't really match a given permeability per se each Sports Court depending on what kind of sport it is what the use is how it's constructed what really matters is what the ground surface covering is and how permeable or impermeable it is right was there also a use component to with the sport court I mean the the drainage was was first and foremost but did we was there any concern with the actual use or installation you know having that ability to look you know to review those applications that do come up because you know if a neighbor you know if an applicant comes in a resident wants to put in a sport court whatever that might be you know is there should there be uh some level of review that the board maintains you know in terms of the effect of the use on the property if I may Mr chairman I think that that's the second round not this round of changes I think that's a very very important question um sidey versus backyard uh you know those you know residents should not have to look at it um and during covid we were kind of generous in our in our understanding of this but um I I think that's very much something that should be in the second round I just wouldn't want to bog down this round with it fair enough I I only brought it up because it was in I believe it was in that draft ordinance um and I think on my time on this board I've only seen one application that we ever addressed it um right you know where someone had put it in and it was over you know o over the over the limit so um pass it on the next time that's fine yeah I think there are some people who put it in without permission and they may come up so it would be good for us to deal with it um if we could in the second round perfect okay so maybe just to um I guess to come up with some conclusions so this what I've heard so far is and correct me if I'm wrong I I think the board wants to stick with the 35% improved lock coverage as it's called which we can change the the terminology but 35% with the minimum 5% reserve for amenities um as well as discount for certain surfaces which we still need I I guess Clarity on that that seems to be the final Point how much of a discount and what materials or surfaces maybe I can throw that out how how feels the the board about 50% of claimed permeability I think it's a good approach if if we don't don't think that that's going to cause issues if we think that's you know it's accepting enough water then I'm all for it do we do we want to think about starting small and working upwards if it's working or 25% yeah I'm just thinking maybe it might be more judicious we just start small see what the impact is ultimately and if it's something where you know looks like it's working maybe we can go a little bit above that but it's just a thought not sure how are we're going to evaluate that we we simply say they would have to present the engineering claim of the product and then discount it by 25 uh discounted by 75% Marina so would there there so there would not be a discount for decks that have spaces between joints no no we're just talking about uh we're talking about pavers and and sports courts right now I think the decks are something different and the pools are something different unless I miss the only a discount only a discount for permeable surfaces and it'll be 25% of the claimed permeability I think that's where we are right now then we can talk about decks and we can talk about pools are we aware of the towns that have done this having problems I'm I'm not aware I mean I'll I'll ask maybe Ed do you want to I mean you've you you've been on the problems and we offer 50% discount of perable p and we've never had an issue that I know what was that percent 50 50 and and so obviously the the percentage translates to square feet right so if the maximum patio you were allowed to have was 200 square ft you can now do a patio of an extra 100 square right I think my Math's right 300 square feet right 50% discount right did I do that right the problem with starting small and then going up is later on you kind of cheated the original people out of their upgraded faed later on yeah I'm I only suggest 25 just because I know the challenges we've we've had with water in the town and I know the the capital that the town is outlaid to try to address those issues and what I would not want to have happen is for us to recommend an action that basically turns all of that on its ear well I would be comfortable with the 50% uh if we keep it to 35 if we go to 37 then I would want 25% if we're going to keep the Imperial coverage to 30 35% I don't know councilman glass you know what what are your thoughts from from um from an elected point of view sounds like there's a precedent for the 50% so that might be a good place to end to land I I would I would think that you I'd rather do a 50 than a 37 because the 37 could be complete concrete yeah you know at least we have some control over this that it has to be a certain product or certain material um yeah because then you can't just put a big concrete patio in your backyard you know for that extra 2% I'm fine with the 50 if the consensus is 50 I merely was just trying to play Devil's Advocate a little bit but I'm okay with the 50 I mean we could always go the we could always pull it back I I I can't imagine it's not like this is you know it's going to get around every corner of the town that now you can add you know more patio I don't I don't know that we're gonna have um a million applications because of this I'm comfortable everybody else is there's um I'll just there's two other aspects to consider other than the coverage there's um one we have setbacks the ordinance requires five foot setbacks from property lines so I'm not suggesting changing that but that's another parameter that you know protects adjacent properties and whether or not there's a a certain threshold which would require onsite Water Management meaning like a seepage pit or something like that so um I don't know Steve do you want to W Pine on that I don't I don't want to create trouble where there's not trouble and you know make things more onerous but uh you know maybe if a patio is let's say above a certain size that would trigger the need for some kind of storm water management intervention I don't I'm just thinking out loud here um thanks Tom I think U I think you have to rely on um our burrow engineer in regards to some of these some of these items um I think Tom hit on a good point that the setbacks on the property are very uh slim very narrow so if you have a court uh again I don't know what a sports court is I can think of a basketball court I don't know if anybody's going to put a tennis court or pickle ball court or anything like that on uh but if that's close to the property line uh you're going to get a major portion of runoff onto a neighbor's property um so I think maybe you want to think about uh a requirement a larger setback for patios or you know paved areas uh things of that nature uh as far as the um percentages go for permability um I think Marina was on point that these tend to clog very quickly uh and people don't tend to clean them out um I I I think it would be uh difficult for me to go around and even if I get a complaint that there was a water problem to to point it to the to the patio um and they would have to show me that it's not you know it's not uh you know you know running off for or so that would be very difficult um some towns the town that uh I I'm full-time in um we rely on the engineer to determine the uh spec specifications of the product being used um so um if it's a you know permeable pavers what is it what do the specifications say and then they reduce it uh you know even further than that with the fact that you you're going to get cloggage as far as dexs decks uh yeah you know you stand on a deck and it's raining or you stand under a deck and it's raining uh you're going to get wet um the issue being what's under the deck you're not going to have P you know concrete or pavers uh but somebody might want to put stones and then uh in order to eliminate weeds they'll put plastic under the stones so I mean I think there's a you know criteria that needs to be covered for that type of situation and that's uh that's all I mean there's a lot of new products coming out you know but I think all of them need to be uh maintained uh and if that's the case then you know it's up to the uh the homeowner to do so but I think the bigger setbacks you have uh the more chance you have of that property's uh you know storm water um percolating into the into their property so are we are we looking now at a a setback change you to address those issues or Tom I think you had also mentioned Water Management additional water management is my point is that there's a few uh components of the ordinance that control how water impacts neighbors and I was just pointing out that the current setback is 5T um which a lot of patio existing patios have been built to 5 feet some are less than 5 feet because they've been they were done you know decades ago um so I mean that that's a policy decision and and you know what would be the right number um and maybe side yard versus rear yard is different of course we have a hilly town so you know it's impossible to to make it right for every single situation right you do your best to try to you know uh address the majority or or average situation so I mean it's a question is 5T the right number um you know uh in consideration of allowing for potentially an increase of of Paving um you know it's it's a question if it's if five Feet's the right number then then you keep it if you want to increase it um we could look at that and what you know I don't I don't think because our lots are relatively small I don't think you could go beyond let's say five or 10 feet I think by then maybe you get a little constrained oh um and and we also have to consider again we have those issues with the corner lots that that are non-conforming where basically the back of somebody's house is 10 feet from the property line they might be impacted in some way but again you can't you can't address every single situation that's why the ml allows for variances and for people to come to the board for Unique uh situations one say something yeah can I just add something you might want to consider a different percentage if a house is in a flood zone a verified flood zone which is a different situation than if they're not in a flood zone uh you can obviously see more water in a flood zone area just I'm throwing it out there on on a typical application that's not coming to us is does does the town engineer get input into the need for storm water or is it adjust when it comes to us no they when their project is presented to us uh and he say its new construction um it's storm water management is a is a part of that product um and the engineer does get involved um I think what you're doing here is you're putting aside 5% so you're reducing the size of the structure when somebody wants to go in and put a building or you know house on a property you're reducing that down to either 30 to 37% but now you're reducing it 5% for you know accessory uses so you're basically in the same area where you are you're just trying to restrict further um the uh the uh areas that you want to set aside for decks and patios uh and that that item so you're kind of still in the same ballpark um you just reduce the building structure by 5% uh and then from that point on is everybody going to do a deck if if they do a structure and you have just grass rear yard they're going to want to do something you know so whether it's a deck or whether it's a patio um I think uh those items uh if they're Incorporated if they want to incorporate them now because you're re giving them a set aside uh maybe a contractor will put a deck on or maybe they will put a patio on if that's the case then the engineer uh will calculate that uh into the uh storm water management design but if if I'm just I have a property that's 25% covered and I want to put in a big patio does that go to the town engineer to decide if I need storm water management so I I that that's I guess more my question so because if it's no then maybe there's some some other mechanism that might need to force them to do some storm water I I think yes um when if an applicant requires a soil moving permit Rob's office does look at storm water management and and sometimes requires them to include uh seepage pits or drain swailes and drains so I'm just wondering if we even if it was otherwise compliant yeah and and if we're giving this you know and and I don't know if we need to but you know just to to mitigate the issue the potential issue of allowing for this percentage um and and I don't know how much work that actually ends up being and is that cost prohibitive for us you know do we need to do we need to check on making them when they are made bigger do we need to have a check and balance it's costly to the applicant because if you're going to have them uh do storm waterer management for a patio or a deck um they have to present their uh engineering uh proposal to the burrow engineer uh and that uh that brings up the price so they might be restrictive yeah remember we we're we can't we can't achieve perfect we just can achieve practical and um you know I think I think I think we're since we're holding it to 35 and we seem to have a consensus on 50% of the claimed permeability it's a good place to start if we have to come back to it we can come back to it I would recommend that we start talking about pools and decks so that we could come to a consensus about the ordinance because it appears they were're going to need for it to come one more time before this body because we're making changes again which is fine but um you know then it delays when it gets to the council and therefore it delays when it gets to the building department and it delays when we start curtailing some of uh what's happening with the builders um so if if that's acceptable Mr chairman I think we should talk about decks and pools at this point sure happy to do so I just want to know for the record Miss K Mr Cano has joined us at 8:16 PM good evening sir good evening I'm sorry it was late everyone thank you no problem um yes so why don't we why don't we address pools uh at this point seems like a can can I com can I comment on that um I think sure and when I talked to uh Rob Costa I was a bit uh surprised that they count the pools as um 100% impervious uh normally your uh your top grade of the water is about six inches five six inches from the coping um and any major storm um that area will not fill that that amount of water into that pool so I would think that you would want to take the pools out of that criteria um and uh also maybe the decks also as long as you have permability underneath it underneath the deck yeah I think the issue is when the pool's covered in the winter or the off months and I don't know what type of permeability those tarps have if any yes actually I can I can speak to that because I actually have a pool in my backyard and I've had both types of covers the ones that are like trampoline covers that are tight yeah and also the ones that kind of fall in that are are held up either by weights or or uh filled water they're permeable and in the winter the pool gets brought down the pool water gets brought down significantly so that it ends up being a giant Basin for whatever water falls I don't have to refill it by the spring because all the water that falls eventually raises it and then maybe I just have to add a little bit so it actually is a positive in terms of what we're talking about the pools because they do gather water and um but the the covers was your question those are permeable the water goes through okay so I think your point is valid Steve that I I'm not sure they need to be counted as in permeable surfaces yeah I think just just the the decade or the the patio around it obviously would need to but I I agree as well I mean I I I've always seen it as you have all of this extra space where the biggest storm is never filling these pools you know as long as I mean maybe it needs to be that you have to have one of these uh covers you know if you are over that you have to have a cover that is permeable it's actually it seems like based on what um Mr Chingo just described to us it actually hold water so it's almost a positive with respect to runoff Bruce yeah I just have a question about that I don't you know I don't profess to be an expert on pools but I did have a pool for a number of years and um what my understanding was always and this is just from you know people telling me this was that a a deep inground pool uh actually can create some flooding problems for Neighbors because the uh the space that it takes up underneath and the material whether it's I don't know if it's concrete or or whatever the the Basin is made of actually prevents um the saturation of the soil from going anywhere and so what happens is again just from what I was told is that where you have a lot of groundwater for example I used to live on Valley Road and everybody's basement would flood from the bottom up it wasn't you know right so it was always question of this the water underground had nowhere to go and so I'm just you know raising it as a yeah it's just placing where groundw could yeah right and I was always told that that was a function of having a having an in pool so are you saying that it had a negative effect on the water table yeah right I have to imagine that also is a function of where you are within the town There's lower and higher elevations and by Valley over there you have all the creeks and and the streams back there sure so that's very different than other areas of River Edge which are higher up so I think some sort of accounting has to be made for that as well um and I hadn't heard what you said but I have no reason to think that it's inaccurate in any way so it's possible yeah so it what about then we say the pools get 75% of um because that that'll does that sound like instead of giving them 100% permeability the pool part not the not the apron part but we give them 75% or 50% of the potential permeability should we should we get some more testimony from experts on this I mean I think we're just kind of Flying Blind here I certain I certainly don't profess to be an expert just because I have a pool you know and and I just don't know who those experts would be and when we could get them I think the burrow engineer would help out greatly yeah I mean this is definitely an issue that's come up in other towns too and it's it's a question of what are you trying to regulate Frank is it permeability is it simply man-made features meaning how much of the you know open space are you leaving on your lot um and also it's the you know impacts to groundwater if if there are any so some some T every town treats it differently some towns have zero discount and some say they're totally impervious and some give a you know somewhere in between 50% discount so again it depends on what you want to regulate if you're going to treat in ground and above ground as the same um that's that's a decision to make um and and just to be clear the the the thing that we currently regulate in Riveredge is not actually impervious coverage it's called improved lock coverage so we we can change that to impervious if you know to make this more clear but the improved lock coverage really I mean based on how I read it seems to relate more to man-made improvements and you know that coverage of the land not necessarily it doesn't speak to impermeability at all really in terms of the definition so I just wanted to draw that distinction so we can modify that so we can get to a place to create these discounts and if if really what we're trying to regulate is you know again impervious coverage we can do that directly I think so that's how other towns think that's not a bad idea and also toh what Bruce had said before um doesn't every basement affect uh the UN boarded table so uh um every property already has these obstructions to U groundwater um I I think that changing it from improve uh improved loot coverage to impervious loot coverage seems to make sense I don't know what everybody else thinks I I I think it makes sense I just so to go back to my question earlier so if if I assume if you're putting in a big pool there's going to be um the soil issue right soil movement permit so wouldn't that trigger Mr Costa having to look at this and determine whether you know further water mitigation would be needed 100% because Mr Costa is going to have to look at it anyway well the yeah but the flip side I mean a well yeah okay so so an above ground wouldn't cause a problem with the water t with the water table um so if it's if it's going to cause a soil movement permit anyway and it's already going to trigger the the town engineer to have to look at it then I think that certainly covers Us better in that regard and the so are we back to 100% for pools or or some small discount I think we have to give a small discount because just as a practical matter when the rain falls the cool gathers the rain no I I me let me rephrase that are we going to say that a pool gets 100% discount or a 25 or 50% discount oh we're talking about inground pools right yeah well yeah we're talking about inground pools I don't know if the above ground pools get the same type of cover no and and there's some argument to be made that above ground pools technically can be dismantled at the end of the season so it's not a permanent it's not as quote unquote permanent if you will as an some some are and some aren't you know you have the the Intex ones that you you know you buy at you know Walmart and then the other ones that are metal steel you know there're definitely different varieties of different varieties yep yeah you know I think it goes back to what the mayor said earlier that there's there's no one siiz fits-all there's no perfect answer that's going to solve it all the way around for every every block of the neighborhood but I so I I think 50% is just kind of a imperfect but practical accommodation I I would also suggest 50 just because at least there's there's recognition of the of this as being you know the board you know we are taking some action toward recognizing that there is some um positive benefit to you know the the feature of an inground pool that does serve to collect some um some of the storm water while you know foring the the the applicant or the resident the opportunity to make the Improvement if they they so choose I'm comfortable with that I don't know about everybody else and and could we say the same for wood decks without any um concrete stone or plastic underneath um that those could also be if they have joints that allow water through that could also be a 50% let let me ask this on on this particular question and I really just don't understand it so I'm not arguing one way or another but if it rains and I've got a deck with wood slats and underneath there's Earth and the rain goes underneath how how is it not permeable like well I mean from a science teacher point of view what would happen is a grass area has worms it has it's aired when the area when you don't have grass you don't have the and I could be wrong on this because I'm just a science teacher I'm not an engineer but when you don't have uh you know when you don't have an ecosystem because the sunlight kills it it tends to pack and the packing makes it less permeable at least that was my understanding when we would talk about ecology and things like that um when I would teach ecology I don't know if that's true or not but that was my understanding I I think I would be more inclined to allow more for a deck because even on that point if it is more compact underneath underneath a patio is is now granted there's going to be Stone and other layers of stuff but underneath all of that is compacted soil so I would I think I'd be more inclined to allow a little more for a deck because of what Mr Keno said I mean it's going through like as long as there's a gap I know there are some products out there that will not allow any water penetration to go through um but I'd be more inclined I I think to allow more for a deck because I just think more more is easily getting through with with a gap um even if it is like as you said Mr Mayer you know more compact underneath but I still think it's it's still compact underneath underneath a patio as well and I would say also as long as there's Earth underneath not some you know crushed gravel back down so that it doesn't allow the water through something like that just what what really matters guys so different surfaces have what they call runoff factors and a runoff Factor depends on the nature of the surface and slope of the surface so it's more how quick the water runs off the surface to somewhere else then how quickly it can recharge in Riveredge we're not getting a lot of recharge so it's just it's more retention it's the rate at which it intensifies and accumulates and runs off the property so a gravel surface like the mayor was saying a grass surface in a just un landscaped soil surface they're all going to have different runoff factors and the rate at which it runs off is really what creates the concern pavement obviously being the worst right it's just going to run off based on the grade how about how about just uh let's consider just maybe to take a poll vote 50 75 or 100 % based on the conversation where where are we I would be comfortable with 50 or 75 just to throw it out me too can I can I can I just have a clarifying question for Mr glass sure so which of so with your statement there is is a deck going to have a better runoff than a patio no I think it it depend again I know it depends on other circumstances but Apples to Apples I think he froze we lost I lost him there he is he's back I'm back I'm sorry if you have a deck and there spaces between the deck the water's going to hit the surface beneath the deck so it depends on the surface beneath the deck like the mayor was saying right so I mean my I think we can give a large discount for a deck that has spaces between between the Treads okay so you think a deck is is a better surface for for our conversation than sure yeah I just want to clarify that okay because the water's G to run it's not going to go anywhere it's just gonna go down yep so doesn't cause runoff that's really what this is about runoff and you'd have the runoff anyway whether the deck was there or not I think was what is I'm taking it one same right then I'd be okay with probably 75% I'm good with 75 me me too yeah I can I could go with 75 same okay so we did pools we did deck and we did any type of impervious surface that is not a pool or a deck um brings us back to whether we want to do the uh offsets uh this you know this I I don't think we need to do that because by incorporating the 5% into the 35% we're essentially looking for them to do the same amount of coverage that they're currently doing can I ask a quick question I'm sorry to interrupt but um do you remember Tom or or anybody on the board um a couple of years ago there was somebody who who created a b basketball court out of like certain tiles whatever have we accounted for that type of uh surface is that it it was touched on we didn't get into it specifically so you know the way it would currently be viewed is uh I think you would look at it probably as an accessory structure maybe um it the ordinance doesn't specifically address it so we're at a not to interrupt you but I thought we did I thought we said that we would look at what ever the engineering claim was and give it a 50% discount am I wrong I I heard that also it's not because we didn't want to get into definitions of what was a Sports Court a sport court yeah that was the that was the thing I was having a challenge with whe is a permeable surface or not right right and then we would leave Dario we' leave it to uh the second round to whether to um you know should it be a side yard a backyard you know when should this be remitted when it should not um simply so we didn't end up spending six months on this ordinance and we could move it forward because right now we're just talking about permeable coverage and its effect on water we can we absolutely have to talk about those other things but if we could move one version forward and second version I'm sorry it popped into my mind and I just didn't want to it's a good question all right thanks Marine Tom have we dealt with all the questions we needed to dealt with deal with um the one question that I would have remaining is we discussed previously changing the terminology from right now we have the definition lot coverage which essentially in almost every other town they consider lock coverage as building coverage so I have that as a change throughout um that that term lock coverage will be now called building coverage and then as it stands right now I have the term improved lot coverage throughout the ordinance but we just discussed that we're going to update the definition to align with impervious lot coverage and then we'll I'll I'll change the definition throughout or change the term throughout the the ordinance I couldn't even begin to weigh in on that I would think that would be something maybe councilman glass or dick merman or or somebody else could weigh in on or maybe Steve dkin I'm good with whatever you guys think to make it easier for the public okay I I agree with the changing to building coverage it makes any any structure that's your calculations go to um and I would just make it simple and make uh the second lot coverage so anything that's collected other than building coverage uh so it would be uh included in that so it would be building coverage plus any other uh impervious area would be lot coverage would that driveways yes anything that's covering the property uh impervious would be considered lot coverage Steve what if they have a separate garage lot coverage building coverage and lot coverage so separate garage is a lot coverage it would be both it would be calculated for building coverage and it would be calculated also as lot coverage when I do the review it's I I review both right but law coverage also includes other impermeable surfaces right correct yeah yeah that makes sense okay anything else to cover on the uh topics I think we've all agreed that it's 35% not 37% correct right and we've all agreed that the 5% is part of the 35 and to make it fair we're doing these discounts yes Marina are you clear with all the discounts yes so what I have is a 50% discount of claimed based on claimed permeability for perious surfaces in ground swimming pools um we'll have a discount of 50% for impervious lot coverage and wood decks with or W decks with um so far with spaces and nothing underneath will have 75 % discount um I think that's everything we're not doing did we talk about above ground pools above ground pools we did not discuss but those are covering a they're covering a a portion of the grass so they wouldn't have they would potentially collect some water um but it's not that it wouldn't be the same effect as collecting runoff it would just collect rainwater so I don't know if you want to give a discount for that I also included a change saying that seasonal pools are not considered improve impervious coverage because those are the ones that are inflatable and can be removed but above ground pools could be considered so those sturdier metal one I think we should have a definition for that because didn't we have have above ground pool come to us once or twice we'll have for years and have decks on them and things like that yeah there been a few we've had a few of them so we're on the 0 2550 75 to 100% discount are we so we think that it's not so it's collecting rainwater it's not helping with runoff but is it hurting runoff yeah I'm not sure I get the distinction Marina that you're making between INR and above ground pools so above ground pools there are two types there's a seasonal and the non-seasonal they've come before this body before we've had debate about it so I'm just making sure that we have a consensus before we ask Marina to do another version because another version brings us to another meeting I think I think with an inground pool the water that's on the property could fall into the pool on an above ground pool the only water that's getting into the pools falling directly into the pool actually actually with an inground pool uh the requirement is it needs to be graded away from the coping so no runoff goes into the pool so that it's really make difference then all right so then it would be a similar discount yeah I think they're the same I mean if they have the same type of cover during the off seon then it would function essentially for the purposes trying to regulate it would function the same whether it was in ground or above ground okay do we have a definition for a Seasonal Pool though I mean I think we all kind of know it when we see it but do we have a clear definition of for that I would suggest I would suggest not having a definition just an above ground pool well but wouldn't that then include a inflatable yes yes it would so you would say that that should be considered as part of lot coverage yeah if someone's if someone's asking to put a a above ground pool you're calling it seasonal um and I'm doing a review I would have to do those calculations have we ever gotten someone asked to put one of those up to be perfectly honest I Haven I haven't been here that long maybe we want the when don't we have the ordinance be silent not mention seasonal we just simply say above ground yeah that's that's what I'm recommending if someone's going to Walmart and buying one of those pools they're not asking our permission uh they need they need to get approvals they need to get permits and but it's I'm sorry but it's regulated by the state I mean that's that is my concern though I mean I I know this it's maybe it seems uh ridiculous but I mean I could think of a scenario where neighbors are having a dispute and you know somebody uses that maybe somebody's kids are playing in the pool too noisily and the neighbor doesn't like it and now they have a way to you know to use the the term weaponize you know they could report them and say you know I don't I don't know maybe I'm going too far out but but if we if we keep it at the same discount if we say it's a pool regardless whether it's inground or above ground then Steve and and Ry can deal with it based on what we're doing unless you think there should be a different discount I I'll remove the I'll remove the distinction for SE I'll just remove the Seasonal Pool and it'll just be treated as a pool I I I don't think I don't think the Intex type pools are doing any better or worse than an above ground pool but I just I just know from real you know realistically they're not coming as per permission but they're not going to be any better or worse I wouldn't think than a regular pool in terms of catching water so I'd probably just get rid of the Season award okay I just have a feeling we're gonna have to deal with that problem at some point it's gonna come if it does then a a future board can ask for a revision I I I I I I see the benefit of stability of zoning laws but I also see that we're going through climate change regardless of what caused it you know you could argue it was whatever you you cause it we we we do have some climate change so let's move forward and see where we get and if we have to modify again we can always modify again based on you know experience sounds good okay so Marina we're going to need for you to um incorporate these changes and send it to everybody yes I will and maybe Mr chairman we might be able to give some time at the next meeting and vote it up or down for uh to move it to the council yeah I think Ed we we do we have uh what's our agenda look like for the 24th Ed for no I think there's only one application on for the next meeting okay it shouldn't take much I would imagine I mean if it's just language of if it's yeah it's just reiterating what we just discussed I couldn't imagine it would take too long right it shouldn't yeah no I just want to make sure we have we have ample time to cover it so Ed if you in mind can you include review of the uh revisions on the agenda for the next meeting yes I will I'll take care of it okay okay anything further on this I want to thank everybody for for the in-depth thought the professionalism it really helps I I believe it's going to really help and I I believe it's a step in the right direction we have one more item under under the discussion topic um I don't if we want to take that on now um we did receive a uh a letter um from the mid Bergen Regional Health commission concerning the use of the terminology of food handlers license in our ordinance so I don't know if we want to he's here by the way hi everybody ah Dan de Browski I know I'm signed in as James fedorko my my name is Dan debrowski I the health official for Mid Bergen Regional Health commission Jim asked me to sit on this meeting just to make a uh quick suggestion since we're sticking on sticking to the topic of language and definitions in 350 -4 um e um you know there is the use of food handlers license which is not a uh you know there is a retail food establishment license which the Board of Health Grants but there is no beverage or food handlers license that is not a thing so the suggestion would be after the section um which is used to uh which is to be used as a retail food establishment as defined in njac 24 which is New Jersey's food uh uh food code that's the state law for for uh restaurants and Retail food establishments whether it's mobile temporary events um so that is the only suggestion just to pretty much anything um where it says restaurant which is to be used as restaurant just replace that and which is to be used as a retail food establishment as defined by J a24 um which is the state code for for restaurants disagree okay we want we we use um food handlers license in the past as the board will explain to you or or even um the uh counselor councel um we use it as leverage and um there's a food handler there's a food manager uh certification um there's also food if I can I'm sorry I'm sorry to interrupted but if you just let Mr merman finish his explanation I think we're it's a different you'll understand when he explains his when when when we have a uh who would handle this license um we want to look at restaurants particularly restaurants in fact we've looked at quite a number of them and we found um changes uh that benefited the public especially handicap parking was in a wrong place or she had to be moved up and likewise um we find it as a very very useful tool um not to take anything away from your definitions but um the board prefers uh it's my opinion that the board prefers to leave it at as we handle it now and I'll let other people all point also let me let Miss steinley uh step in so Mr merman I think that from my understanding is that they're not requesting that the board or the bureau eliminate this site plan review is just to change the way we talk about this type of site plan review so um there is no the buau and the mid Bergen Regional Health commission do not issue quote unquote food handlers licenses they call it a retail food establishment certificate so they just want us to update the language to match their that whatever certification that that they provide could we do that just by changing our definitions food handle license food handler license includes whatever you just said but I like the term food handlers license if you just want to change your the borrows definition even though we say food handlist to include what you just discussed do you think I think that that would be a good compromise yeah I think the the letter was a little a little misleading in what what it was looking to achieve because it's not exactly I I agree with you Marina I think that was probably what the ask was or the intent behind the letter but the letter I think gave a little bit of a different spin on things in the sense that it was look it almost could be interpreted that uh the request was being made to remove it from from the uh from our process but if if the ask is as Marina just said which and I'll let you I'll let you confirm firm that um specifically but if that's the request that's being made here then um I think that's I mean subject to the board's input I don't think that's that's something that uh couldn't otherwise be addressed um you know based off of what Jim told me it's just a suggestion um to make the language clear and have it actually defined by uh you know state state law um but I I agree um you know definitely not removing the site plan approval absolutely not you know it's just changing the language just to make it a little more comprehensive and uh you know a retail food establishment as defined as in njac 24 and and you know they they clearly Define it as um because here it says sit down service takeout service it just um use a lot of different terms where retail food establishment would ENC encapsulate all of that so um that's that is the only suggestion just changing the language um not to remove the section can I just ask a question so I I get that you're not trying to change the policy you're just trying to get us to use the correct terminology something that I I haven't noticed in the past but I just found on the borrow code is chapter 442 which is called food handler certification does that need to be changed are we I mean so so there is a food manager uh certification or a food handler certification those are the two courses that um we require by njac 24 that a so there's different risk types of restaurants a risk type 3 restaurant requires uh at least one person in charge to have a food manager certification and um any other restaurants uh should have at least one person in charge RIS type 3 2 1 or four uh has at least one person with a food handlers certification so there's food managers which is the real good one that we would like to see all restaurants really have some some um Boards of Health have an ordinance where they require all restaurants retail food establishment regardless of what risk type to have at least one person working with a food manager certification food handlers license food handler certification is a very simple test um you know it's a couple of questions um and they really get that that certification very easily um so I don't really like that one the food manager certification is definitely a little bit more thorough all right and you've made your recommendation so thank you for the clarification thank you thank you for your time okay thank you can I make a comment M on the um the applications that uh um not a restaurant say like a pizza poo we've had a couple come in and all they're doing is just it's a turnkey operation you know they're taking over uh another uh another um you know store um and they're not changing anything um and uh it takes it takes a bit of time they're a bit surprised that they have to wait uh and go in front of uh get approval from the board um has has the uh burrow found any issues with you know those type of uh situations that things needed to be uh you know corrected so I think we've we've come across this before where it's basically to sell the business as opposed to a change in use to your to your point you know that the pizzeria is going to continue operating as a pizzeria no one really is gonna you know the general public would not would not really notice it discernable difference in what's happening there um so we've we've encountered situations where we've we've discussed in the past you know it it would make sense to have some sort of a streamline process where that occurs where somebody could certify that you know there is a change of ownership and no change of operations no change in delivery no change in tables no change in restaurant seating hours of operation deliveries that sort of thing um so that is something we we have looked at or we have discussed in the past um to Mr merman's point before you know even in those situations where there is a simple change I mean there there are instances where there were certain deficiencies in in some cases that needed to be corrected it may have been striping on a on a parking space for example um you know reconfiguring you know of of handicap parking spaces if you will um you know those instances where the board's review has help to um you know update or correct any sort of you know deficiencies that um needed to be corrected and you know not only to help the general public but also to help the operation of the business so I don't think we we took formal action as a board on that on that quote unquote streamline process but it's it's something that we should probably consider and I think maybe um to the mayor's earlier point you know we were talking about uses that would be a topic that I think we should take up you know at that time when we're looking at other uses but it's a good it's a good suggestion and certainly you know what we don't want to be is um uh you know is is creating you know obstacles for businesses in town you know we want to try to you know make sure that uh you know we don't want to un unnecessarily burden them um particularly if they're new businesses or you know any business in general you know with with things that you if there is a situation where they're all that you know as you say all they're doing is just you know there's it's one party leaving and another party coming in and and you know things are continuing as as as is as was um you know in those instances if there's an ability to streamline things and make things you know um less burdensome um you know that's something we should we can consider yeah I I I I think so because the I would call them mom and pop typee of operations you know they might not even have parking you know there might be the strip section you know by Crest that that area um there are still inspections that are done um the uh fire prevention office will go do and uh inspection and Board of Health will also be in there doing inspections so I think yeah that I think that would help out those type of operations that are looking to start as and costly too to have uh you know another burden of you know a cost for that uh for that Mom and Pop just to turn key sure Fair Point Fair Point okay um I think we've uh covered the agenda for this evening anybody have anything further yes Mr chairman I have a um question for Tom Barons Tom uh I'm here yes okay um the the Lo the local news um the town news recently ran an article about Murphy signing a bill to overhaul a affordable housing system okay yeah umy yeah Tom is is this is this part of the discussion we had uh a a while ago where um they're just going toh reshuffle the deck and deal out more requirements um as far as numbers are concerned that's exactly right so we did touch on it at a prior meeting I think right after the new legislation came out and basically the state legislature is Reinventing not Reinventing the wheel they're creating a new process so the old process is out the window right um they've kept some of the components but they're coming up with a whole new method as to how to assign individual towns their their affordable housing obligations and what those specific numbers will be in terms of unit so right that that is what that is okay um yeah okay A L the part B of the question I think I gotta ask it but um it seems to uh to fall in also we had uh discussed uh with that conversation recently came up when there was a proposed Senate Bill uh 2847 um that was well you know what that was they were they were going to JY in accessory dwelling units yeah yeah um that nothing on that right now is that still either in process or dead or whatever is that so it's separate but it's out there um I think they have to act on it by the summer or it dies um I I don't know but with what's going on at the state level it's it's anybody's guess what they'll actually do with it do I I think it's a great idea as written I think it there's some issues that need to be ironed out but but again I I have no sense of which way they'll go with that oh okay so so right all right so you you basically answered my question um the one that um Governor Murphy signed was uh the reg the re the read shuffling of the deck of cards as far as numbers were concerned yeah and that is law um we should give the board a better update because there are a bunch of timelines and and things that the B has to do and the planning board has to do so we should get you guys up to speed okay shortly good all right great thank you that's all I had Mr chairman all right Mr merman I will uh with that I'll look for a motion to adjourn to close the meeting no moved thank Mr Gib is there a second second thank you all in favor I any oppose I'm stay all right we stay in adjourn at 9:01 p.m thanks everyone