call call the meeting to or this is the municipal luse Board of the burough River Edge it is Wednesday November 8th 2023 time now is 7:31 pm. this meeting of the municipal lus Board of the burough river is being held remotely and recorded via Zoom due to the board burrow council chambers unavailability and is in compliance with the provisions of the open public meetings act and Associated regulations notice that this meeting was published in the Bergen record on October 6 2022 posted on the front door 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 a copy of the agenda for the meeting was made available on the bur'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 address You by name or by the last four digits of your telephone number 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 one housekeeping item of minute we will have a curfew this evening of 10 pm with that I'd like to turn over to miss styley to call the role please yes thank you Mr Mayor here Mr kaslin here miss Bolan is absent at the moment Mr merman here Mr feffer is excused tonight Mr cray is absent as well Mr aelian oh he's muted but he is here uh councilman Kino here Mr gibons here Mr Esposito here Mr B bed is excused tonight um also present is um Jason Flores for serving as our board engineer tonight from Mr Costa's office and Tom Baron's um will be here as well I think he just dropped off okay well believe we'll get uh Tom back in I think this isn't com back there we go all right very good and Mr Craig is here as well he just came in through the attendee oh good okay let him uh join us okay uh as we move down the tonight's agenda uh we have no correspondence uh the 1025 minutes are not yet available uh the next item on our agenda for this evening under discussion is a discussion of resolution regarding ordinance number 23-19 uh concerning lead based paint inspections uh this was uh referred to us for review or consistency with the master plan uh by burough Council uh Mr styley you would uh start us off please yes so this ordinance is for lead-based paint inspections in the buau um under state law um land landlords or owners of single and two family or multi-dwelling units that are rented um must obtain an in inspection for lead based paint hazards within two years of the date of the law um and then the burrow there's two options for landlords is to either go on it on their own and get their own inspection um or and pay a fee u a $20 fee I believe a $50 fee to the state there's a state fund for this type of service and then the other option is for the municipality to go in and do the inspection um this ordinance provides an initial inspection fee for when the buau conducts the inspection of 00 um or if you if the dwelling owner or landlord hires the private contractor they only have to pay the $50 administrative fee to the Department of community fairs I did look up some neighboring towns um to see if they had already put in an ordinance and to see what their fees were it seems like Riveredge is a little bit on the high end but that that could just be because the inspectors are required to get certified and trained for to do this type of work um so River Edge's fee the initial inspection fee is $500 in New Milford their inspection fee is $100 but then there's additional cost for the actual analysis in idell their fee is around $285 plus additional fees for inspecting each unit and paying the administrative fee um one of the other higher um towns was Dumont they had an initial visual inspection fee of $100 but then if there's actual testing that needs to be perform conducted then it cost $250 um for each of the those inspections so Riveredge it seems like it's a little bit high but um not completely out of the ordinary so tonight we need to review the ordinance um for master plan consistency because it is affecting the zoning chapter um and make any recommendations to the council so there was one minor typographical error regarding the citation of the state law so I recommend that we just include that in the resolution and then possibly consider reducing the proposed inspection fee if that's necessary but if you have any questions free to answer them Tom sorry M go ahead no I was just gonna turn to you if you could give us your give my spin on so I I think uh Maria Mar excuse me gave a great overview of what the um ordinance entails and as she noted it's an amendment to chapter 416 of the burrow code which is the zoning ordinance which by default makes it a development regulation and when there's a change to a development regulation or or a a new development regulation introduced the municipal land use Law requires that the governing body forward that ordinance to the planning board or in this case the land use board for review and comment and specifically to identify if there are any provisions of the uh master plan which are deemed to be inconsistent with uh any provision of this ordinance so because of the nature of the ordinance um in that it you know generally promotes the public welfare to identify if there's any lead paint you know and obviously identify hazards uh where people live um and reviewing the master plan which promotes the general welfare and providing uh you know reasonable housing Alternatives there's nothing in our current master plan documents that would uh be inconsistent with this ordinance and that's really what the board has to determine if there's any inconsistencies there are uh master plan goals that would support this type of thing again promoting the general welfare and similarly providing uh modernized housing so from that standpoint I I think at a minimum the board could find that this ordinance is not inconsistent I know that's a double negative but that's often how these things are reviewed um and so if the board was so inclined they could um you know deliberate amongst yourselves but but come potentially come to that conclusion and uh forward that to the governing body that you've conducted the the master plan consistency review in accordance with the law as well as forward any recommendations I know Marina talked about the fees um if there's anything else that stands out to any members in terms of providing a recommendation to the mayor and Council for consideration that information can also be forwarded as a part of this review process um so that pretty much sums up what the board's task is in reviewing this ordinance okay thank you Mr Baron so for the record uh Miss Boland is now here she was here at 7:35 uh let me open it to questions to the board at this point um for on for either uh miss steinley or Mr baren uh Mr chair just k um I don't necessarily have a question for them um just just a comment on on that fee um I do think it's you know coming from the real estate side I do think it is a bit um you know I think most of these are going to be a visual inspection I don't think many at least in our town are going to need an actual uh physical inspection you know and test results so personally I would rather see us have something along the lines of I forget what town it was you know $100 visual inspection and if it's deemed more is needed then ask for more um you know $500 asking you know asking $500 from um you know someone that might be renting the other side of their house out or you know or small rental um personally I think it's a bit High um if there's a need for you know a further inspection certainly you know that that's warranted um but you know I I do think many inspectors are not doing it um on the side because of insurance and different reasons so the the landlord may be hard pressed to find someone to actually do it besides the burrow um so personally I would suggest we do you know a visual inspection for lower number and if if we need to do more you know if more is involved then more fee could be added on just my two cents okay thank you Mr GI anyone else Mr chair Mr so I've been through a few of these already the inspections uh including uh one here in Riveredge uh and uh Mr Silverman took me through the process that he was looking uh for me to accomplish and at the time time my client had to hire a private firm out of hackensac and they charged I think $200 so the ordinance the ordinance is actually part of the state law that that was enacted about two years ago uh which I was very much updated on being I'm on the board of directors for the board of realtors here in Bergen County um there's yeah the towns have their choice whether they're enacting a a visual or a physical the physical would be that somebody would actually walk around and and do wipe tests and then send out the wipes to see if there's any lead pain those are typically and again this was all in the class that I took done uh with older buildings that are multiple you know more in the city kind of foundation as opposed to you know a town like Riveredge where you know it's there's small apartments and and and so forth where they just enact the visual so the the the the the problem is that of course if the burrow doesn't send the building inspector to get certified uh as an environmental uh lead Paine inspector the fee is irrelevant anyway because they can't charge it if they don't have anybody to do it uh what we've been suggesting to the towns that have come to us for some guidance on this and there have been many that they do send their inspector out get certified and then they keep the fee reasonable to what a private company would do which would be about $200 and uh you know I think that's reasonable and and and and Ryan makes a good point if it's somebody that's just renting a a small one-bedroom apartment they're paying $500 every two years and this this has to happen every two years there there's no one inspection and you're done every two years this has to happen uh of course that $500 is not going to be absorbed by the landlord it's going to be absorbed by the person that's renting the apartment and if they're renting it for uh ,000 a month uh now you've just gone up another what uh $60 a month to to cover that cost so that's my recommendation to the town that they that they send their inspector out to get certified and they bring that fee down to a reasonable $200 which is about what all the other towns are doing or just leave it as it is and let them go get their own private people who charge about the same thank you thank you Mr AR anyone else okay um at this point I will uh look for a a motion on the Mr chairman I can offer a motion put this into a motion but first I would like to clarify what the board members feel um adequate fees are numerically so I can include it in my um motion as a recommendation to the Ving Council uh I sounds like perhaps that an initial visual fee of around $100 um is possible and a higher number for a a physical fee um is that what I'm hearing I need some help here with numbers that's what it sounds like to me certainly that was the recommendations it sound like Mr gibons and Mr Kellan to reduce the um the amounts um for for both just just just to be clear it would it would be the town would either enact the ordinance for a visual inspection or a physical inspection you you you're not required or is it in the law to be able I believe believe Marina can back me up on that to do both you're going to do either one or the other and most of the small towns in our in Bergen County that I know of uh that have this ordinance have done a visual have adopted the ordinance for a visual inspection only yeah but is is there not a possibility that a physical might be needed no because because once the areas of inspection are pointed out to the the homeowner they have to go in and REM remediate it and usually what's done is you hire a painter okay and he comes in and either spackle or and then paints over it and it and it's over because the only way you can really do anything with lead paint at this point is either rip the walls out and redo everything which nobody's very few people are doing or just paint over it and that's encapsulating the lead pain is what is what is the protection okay all right M Mr chairman um can I suggest that we pull the board uh on what the initial uh visual inspection dollars might be so we have a sense on that that seems to be the only variable that's that sounds right to me I think that's an appropriate step um Miss sty maybe while in the meantime would you confirm whether it's one it's one inspection or there's a distinction between inspections while we we uh take up the question on the yes um the way the ordinance is written right now it's not clear um it just says inspection fee so maybe we could that could be an additional recommendation okay so let let's go around so why we start with uh Mr uh Craig if you've got an A suggested amount for the inspection fee well I mean I'd really think that the uh the FI ought to be commenor it with what it would cost to go and have it done by a third party right um you know it shouldn't be punitive to have them use the Burrow's Services if that's what we want them to do so if if if $100 or $150 is a typical uh cost for a visual inspection I don't see why we'd want to exceed that by any significant amount okay Mr ESO yes what did I miss do you have do you have a particular amount in mind for suggesting what the inspection fee ought to be not at this time no okay so you you'll go along with with with the the general consensus of the board is on that right thank you sir Sir Mr gibons I think you just to recap your your proposal I mean if if the typical number is 200 I mean if if you did 150 it could incentivize them to use our inspector and it could make the borrow a little bit more money so I'd say about 150ish okay Miss Boland you're on mute sorry about that um I would defer to the members that have uh more experience okay thank you uh Mr Eric Kelly would agree with Ryan I think 150 is is fair and uh and and non-punitive to the uh people that are that own rentals currently in a property in in the process okay thank you uh Mr Mayor and councilman I don't know that you necessarily have a a statement here or I don't want to speak councilman but um uh this was this fee was recommended by our ba uh based on what she felt would be appropriate the council uh may or may not agree with that when it comes up for a second hearing um uh the recommendations of this body um May sway the council to uh change uh or or more argument from our ba may change uh May uh lead the council to remain at the current fee but um so what I guess I'm saying is since I'm going to be part of the decision-making process final decision- making process uh I'm not going to take a position uh in tonight because I believe this is a recommendation from lanard board that should should come really clean to the mayor and Council so from for my point of view is whatever this body wishes to recommend is fine um it will then be uh maybe someone from this body might want to come to the mayor and council's meeting when when it's reviewed and uh verbally make the arguments that you're making now um but um uh I don't want to take a position right now because I belong to both bodies and I belong to the body that will be making the final decision okay thank Mr Mayor cman yeah same thing I'm not taking it position either way I just want this land use board to just be aware that the $500 figure wasn't a reached willy-nilly there was discussion and uh our burough administrator has reasons for it and I believe that she has uh looked at all of Bergen County and um you know she she can speak more to it uh when it comes up but I just want this board to understand that uh of course we value and Shish your opinions but I think that there's information that maybe you don't have right now as to why the 500 $100 fee was reached so that being said I take no position either way I'll just let everybody you know reach their decisions and then hear it uh when it comes before the board if I'm if before the council if I'm still on it fact just a question just a point of information do you know if the fees that they develop that the ba developed uh was based on a fiscal inspection or just visual do you know what was included I believe it was physical inspection as well but I don't want I don't want to speak definitively on it because we we talked about it quite a while ago so I I don't remember all the details of it right now but certainly Lizette would be best suited to fill in the blanks if this board has any questions and if this board wanted to get a survey of Bergen County towns and what they're doing uh as well so that they have that information I'm sure that can be uh made available so just just putting it out there just you know I if it comes to pass that we end up gets before the council we end up voting the 500 even though you say 150 I don't want you guys to think that we're ignoring you I mean there are reasons that we reach these decisions uh but certainly we value everything you say so I just wanted to make that clear Fair thank you councilman so Mr mman it sounds like we're hearing AIT a range here and perhaps that might be the the course to follow a range between 150 and in $200 or whatever's commen for with what a third party would otherwise charge and okay just to reiterate what Miss styley said you there's no distinction from what appears between a visual and a uh physical inspection least as far as the statute's concerned okay and um having to put my two cents in uh I I I I will agree with the two uh realy Representatives so I will make my motion when I make it that the uh mayor and councel can consider a visual inspection fee from 150 to 00 $200 um having said that uh um let's see if we can put a motion together here Mr chairman thank you mrman um it's like building a bear here all right uh I'll make a motion that regarding the uh resolution or recommendation for the adoption of ordinance number 23-19 amending the many chapter 416 of the zoning uh code of Rivage that um the board finds that the um finds that the ordinance and what's proposed here the proposed was is consistent with the master the plan since it promotes the uh protection of Health and Welfare and Public Safety and also encourages the master plan encourages the rehab of substandard um deteriorating housing therefore um there is no inconsistency uh with the master plan plan and um the recommendation is made to the mayor and Council to um uh consider that is the board's position and with the recommendation of a um visual inspection fee ranging from $150 to $200 be considered by the mayor and councel that's it okay there second a second thank you Mr G Miss stying do you want to do a roll call um yes and just to clarify um in the resolution I'm going to put in not inconsistent with the burrow master plan just to match with the municipal land use law language um and I'm also going to recommend the fix of the minor typographical error um all right if that's all right all right um Mr Mayor Miss dley question if I and or councilman kigo abstain would that cause the motion to fail go that would cause it to fail I I'll vote Yes but I would prefer to vote um I would I would prefer to take no position I agree um no it won't cause the I don't I don't think so I can call I'll call you on you last just to make sure okay Mr C St at this time yes all right Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr Cay yes Mr AR Kellan yes Mr Gibbons yes Mr Esposito yes all right uh Mr Mayor will abstain I will abstain yes and councilman kigo abstain all right the motion passes okay thank you all uh our next uh item this evening on the agenda are memorializations um I know that these came in sort of uh late in the process to rev just want to make sure is there anyone who is uh not in a position to be able to vote on either of these this evening from the board okay and in that case let's proceed uh the first memorialization is for uh the applicant Dale taly property is 200 Valley Road this is uh lot 31 in Block 1104 uh the resolution granting variance for maximum approved loot coverage uh for the subject property uh any questions or comments on the draft of the resolution that was circulated for review Mr chairman Mr mvin um I uh I read this resolution today and I compared it with my notes and so forth and as written I find it to be quite acceptable okay thank you Mr merman anyone else from the board comments questions okay at this point I will entertain a motion on this resolution please so moved I think I have a first from Mr Gibbons and a second Mr second Mr Cay all right uh I'll only call those eligible uh to vote Mr Mayor yes Mr castlin yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr cray yes m Mr Eric ellien yes councilman kigo yes Mr Gibbons yes all right the motion passes next item under memorializations uh the this is the applicant Nesh Patel property is 315 vanon Drive uh lot six in Block 1106 uh resolution is granting a variance for maximum improved block coverage drafted resolution was circulated for review any questions or comments from the board Mr chairman Mr merman likewise I reviewed this this afternoon and compared it with my notes and I find this resolution complete and most acceptable okay thank you Mr merman any other questions or comments from the board okay at this time I'll entertain a motion on the resolution please so moved thank you M bow is there a second second thank you Mr Givens Miss okay Mr Mayor yes Mr castlin yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr Craig yes Mr kellian yes councilman kigo yes uh Mr Gibbons yes all right the motion passes okay thanks everyone for uh being able to review that on on a a quick turnaround next on our agenda this evening under completeness review the applicant is Coretta Investments LLC property is 298 Taft Road this is block 1108 lot 28 the application is seeking approval of additions to to an existing dwelling and related side improvements height maximum lock coverage maximum approved lock coverage approvals required Miss steiny yes thank you prior to this 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 for that Mr Barons good evening um yes so with respect to the um completeness review um the applicant submit mited uh and accurate uh existing condition survey as well as plans which include the uh site plan or plot plan and Architectural drawings which seem to be accurate in and uh in order for the board to proceed great thank you sir questions or comments from the board as to completeness okay there being done I'll entertain a motion uh on completeness please so moved thank you Mr given I think I have a second for Mr CR all right Mr Mayor yes Mr klin yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr Craig yes Mr Kellan yes councilman Kino yes Mr Gibbons yes Mr esposita yes all right the motion passes okay thank you uh our next item under completeness review this evening the applicant is Joe and Deborah dabd the property is 390 5th Avenue this is block 9006 lot 39 the application proposes an installation of a new inground pool surrounding patio and pool equipment variance relief is sought for maximum improved lock coverage and various other bulk and setback requirements m d yes uh prior to the meeting I reviewed the proofs submitted by the applicant and found them to be sufficient for the board to have jurisdiction over the application tonight okay thank you Mr bar yes so um I've reviewed the application materials and I'll just note that the plans have evolved a bit since I originally reviewed them back in August and issued my review letter um and so the applicants proposing an inground pool uh patio and pool equipment as well as a seepage pit for drainage um the original plan had the pool we'll say deeper into the rear yard and they've since revised the plan a bit so there are two iterations of the new plan which I I think when it's the applicants term we'll just have to confirm which plan we're going to go with because they differ a bit in terms of what the proposed coverage is going to be and because they've revised the plans there's a at least one variant which pertains to the improved law coverage calculation and again it differs between the plans so I think we have enough to proceed but we just need clarification when the time comes in terms of which plan we should be looking at okay uh Mr Flores sorry oh yeah uh like like good evening everybody like Tom said uh since my office reviewed this plan the first time they have involed and we just going to need clarification or as to which plan are we going to go in order to calculate the proper uh you know imperious L coverage and I think we have sufficient information to proceed with the applications tonight okay thank you questions or comments from the board on completeness okay there being none I will uh look for a motion on completeness of this application move to accept it as complete thank you Mr C is there a second I think Mr given on a second all right Mr Mayor yes Mr castlin yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr cray yes yes Mr Eric Kellan yes councilman kigo yes Mr Gibbons yes Mr Esposito yes all right the motion passes okay thank you folks uh moving down our agenda for this evening are under new business the applicant is credit Investments LLC property is 298 ta Road this is block 1108 block 28 application is for additions to an existing dwelling and site improvements looking for height maximum lock coverage and maximum improved lock coverage approvals uh I believe the applicant is here and I believe applicant's council is also present good evening okay hello good evening gentlemen so M the applicant's attorney um could you just enter your appearance uh zarosian it's first name is z r e last name is k h o r o z i a an is Nancy okay and what do you have any professionals here I know there's some people in the yeah there's two um two attendees now one's uh I believe Matt okay Matt is there Matt Evans Alex dhy okay I'm gonna promote them to panelist perfect and we'll get everyone's warn in awesome thank you so much all right and Alex to yeah he's still showing up as an attendee there there right so once everyone's whoever is going to provide testimony we'll need the cameras on and just ask that you 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 all right and we'll start with is it the applicant um if you please state your name spell your last name provide your address for the record yes it's Nicholas guanes n i c h o l a s g u v a n i s address 298 ta Road of thank you and we'll go to Mr or Alex yes if you please state your name spell your last name provide the board with your qualifications Alexander dowy last name is do u g h rty professional planner 54 Main Street shadam New Jersey my education at a Rucker blousing with a Masters in City and Regional planning and a concentration development Redevelopment studies and I test the finance capacity on a weekly and daily basis all right and then down in the corner Matthew Evans yes Matthew Evans architect planner uh I'm be testifying as an archit uh and I have Javier Kean with me uh also on the project um could you just spell your last names for the record please e v Ms and then Javier diano q i j a n o okay thank you and um Mr Evans you and will be testifying as an arch ECT um could you just provide the board with your lure and background okay I'm presently licensed in the state of New Jersey um as a registered architect in good standing I've testified uh before numerous boards and um been accepted in the field of architecture uh in Bergen County Pake County throughout New Jersey uh in the field all right questions from the board as to the qualifications of either the architect or the planner okay thank you all right Mr Corian thanks everyone um good evening chairman of the board I represent the applicant with respect to the premises located on 298 Taff Road River Edge applicant promote uh proposes to make improvements in additions to the existing single family dwelling including adding a second floor rear deck and car garage the applicant is seeking only two variances maximum lock coverage and maximum improved loot coverage applicant is not seeking a use variance the premises will be remaining as a single family dwelling please note just one thing I wanted to note to the chairman and the board uh there is a discrepancy between the variances listed in the letter of non-compliance and the application the letter of non-compliance states the maximum lock coverage proposed is 38.4% while the application in fact States applicant proposes only 27.2% which is 2.2% over the required maximum just want to note that discrepancy um tonight I have three experts but an architect and the planner um the first expert I'm going to call up is Matthew Evans and Javier um Matt and Javier if you could just make sure your mics are open okay all right we have a um several sheets we have a four sheet submission sheet S1 A1 A2 A3 dated uh recent date 9823 uh which were updated from the um Engineers review um going to sheet S1 we show uh the site location plan we have details and we have um the zoning data and also showing the site plan do I need to do I need to um present anything or should I yeah Matt so just a few questions just for the record just to get it in line um have you conducted a physical inspection of the property yeah we've uh We've measured and and and done site review of the property great and you've reviewed the coaster engineering review letter dated November 3D yes um and you're you're positive you can comply with every request made by the board yes I believe we've made made those um amendments to our presently uh side plan based on some of the uh drainage and Engineering details that were uh needed great and you prepare the drawings for this application correct yes okay so you could please just go ahead describe your scope of work and also just discuss with the board your drawings Page by Page should we post the drawings or you can you can share your screen if if you have the drawings available make sure I can um second okay can you see that yes okay um So based on what I um what I uh brought up before we have the site location plan uh the drainage and Engineering details based on the review letter we have the zoning data and Zoning worksheet um and then we have de site plan above which shows uh the the property which as you can see is in a regularly shaped lot I'm sorry I'm sorry to interrupt you maybe if you could get rid of the bookmarks tab that might give you a little more space on the left hand side that might that better yeah that way maybe you can blow it up a little bit for the back of the board okay yeah we'll go right into the site then maybe great thank you so um as you can see um it's a pie-shaped property um so it's it it um it gets smaller as you get to the rear of the property basically 10.53 feet in the rear um so we were working with those existing conditions and um what we've done is we proposed an addition that would conform with the new construction within those setback lines so we have um in addition to the uh uh twostory Edition in the rear with the deck we're also adding um a second story to the existing single story house um presently it has a single car garage uh what we're doing is we're going to take some uh piece of that um living space and create it uh a new two-car and make that a two-car garage and then improve that um driveway so we would have the ability to park two cars in the garage and uh have two cars in front and um as you can see we have the drainage structures and showing the the um the grading and the uh improvements to the rear so that's um essentially what we're proposing on the site plan what I can do is go to the next sheet um wait was this right point trying to get the next sheet up um I'll take I have trying to get the second sheet up here sorry um okay so sorry so going to the um second page which is sheet A1 we show um as you can see on the top left we have the demolition plan uh showing the existing conditions in the basement and basically around the perimeter uh in the existing basement it's in basically all crawl space and uh around the perimeter of the existing basement going to the existing floor plan which is also shows demolition we show the single car garage to the left living dining uh the existing kitchen uh the stairs and then we have three bedrooms to the right hand side of the uh ranch house then um going to the first um Bas basement plan which is proposed you could see how we have the um crawl space areas to the perimeter we're providing a new stair um uh two stairways we have one in the front one in the middle and then we're going to on the addition side we have a finished basement area which we would be adding to the existing basement so the basement uh existing as you saw before is a little small so this will give them additional storage and area usable area Mr I'm sorry before you go ahead could you please go back to the first floor demo plan just want to make sure we understand um the extent of the first floor demolition because that could relate to the um existing non-conforming side yard setbacks to remain um which I can EXP explain further okay so this is the um you see on the small rectangle on the left on the demolition plan that's the uh garage area and then you have crawl space the U shape in the back and then you have as you can see just the center core basically this little L-shaped section is ba uh would be basement we have cross space so that's basically the perimeter now if you look at the proposed basement uh it's a little hard to read because um but you can see the unexcavated areas would be remaining and then we have basically the as you could see it it um basically convenes it gets smaller in the back to to work with those uh side yard property lines so that's why all right so pertaining to the where the existing garage is can that the existing Foundation support a two-story Edition above it as it exists are you have to rebuild the foundation um no it's ex it would be suitable it's only going to add another story it'll be a bedroom above and um as you can see the span is small it's 10 feet on the the bearing so this it would not uh negatively impact the existing structure all right but and what's there now is more than just a concrete slab There's an actual building Foundation under the garage yeah there's Foundation uh putting in foundation and that would remain okay scooting over to the left to the first floor um the first four demo plan yeah there you go first four proposed plan or no demo plan quick sorry no problem first or demo plan right so here's the garage y scroll right right there you go so you have existing uh non-conforming sidey setb where the we'll call the back corner of the garages and the back right corner of the house for the purposes of looking at this so the ordinance does allow for vertical additions if the first floor is to remain but if the first floor is being demoed or significantly demolished then you're starting from scratch from a zoning compliance standpoint so that that's why I ask I I just want to understand because we have the existing first floor demo plan I want to make sure that corresponds to the actual first floor plan and again understanding what walls will will remain can the existing garage framing support a story above it um because there's no framing details so is your plan to I guess sister the walls or go directly vertical we would go directly vertical um probably reframe or double up the existing Joys if needed for the uh second floor um above and uh we would add appropriate uh structure for to open up that garage too so um that would remain the rear wall and the side wall would remain and they're in good shape so they wouldn't have to be demolished and rebuild well what else is remaining though because if it's just those two walls that doesn't necessarily cut it that's that's what yeah all the perimeter walls for the um the first floor would remain um with the with the with the exception of some of the openings in the back wall for the addition okay and the proposed first floor ceiling height is what I believe it's 8 feet and um we have uh so going to it we have nine feet on the first floor we G to put a be so you so again you're going from eight to nine so are you going to keep the existing framing in place and go up or are you going to Sister the the beams to achieve not the beams but sister the studs to to achieve the 9 ft so what we normally do um we keep the 2x4 structure and then we add like a micr lam basically it would be like a header around the whole perimeter like would wrap the uh structure and then frame above that okay so you would essentially maintain the Integrity of the framing and go vertical yes okay all right thank you okay so um going to we going let's go to the first floor which is the next sheet so as you can see we have um the proposed going from the garage so now we'll have a two-car garage U as you can see the existing walls would remain a little lighter than the some of the new walls so the new walls are all hatched darker and the new walls would remain um we have the two-car garage then we have have um the the rear stair uh between the dining room and the garage and access to the sidey yard and then we have the main doors uh for the front entry and we have uh basically an open twostory section with a new stairwell that is open to the second floor and then we have a a basement door that goes uh to the basement below uh the first floor to the right we have a guest room with a with a bathroom and a closet and then we have um a dining room which would Encompass the rear section of the existing house so basically those three bedrooms that were on the first floor would just be um dedicated to a guest room in the front and then the dining room would take that rear section and uh then we open up a nice foyer looking through to the rear of the house and we have um a powder room and then closets Coke closets and then coming back to the rear we have a nice open kitchen breakfast and dining uh basically a family room in the back uh that would Encompass that whole rear section um and that's basically the the first floor Edition uh as discussed then there'll be a deck in the back and a few steps down to grade from the deck so the deck is going to be 12 by uh 25 and um that would be the the um first floor proposed going to the proposed second floor which is all going to be new now because it was a ranch house and then we come up the main stair in the front and then we um have the um like an open Landing uh in the in the second floor and to the right we have bedroom number three with closet then we have a Jack and Jill bathroom that's shared by bedroom number three and bedroom number two and then we have a large bedroom over the garage which is bedroom number four and then we have an office area laundry and then in the back uh section we have the um primary bedroom with primary bath and walk-in closet in the rear so um that's that's the extent of the the new second floor going to I believe that would be it for that sheet too right so that's yeah those two two floor plans going to the going to the front elevation um basically it's there's a typo here it's tap um at Road it's not it's typo and then looking at the elevation we have a mix of materials so what we wanted to do is um take this um new addition and break up the facade and give it some aesthetic curb appeal and we mix it with different um type of Windows uh facade entry Stone um and different materials for clabber and Hardy plank um then we have the roof and some Gables to uh break up the roof area on the above then we have a nice um uh standing seene metal roof above the the new two-car garage and then we have the stone veneer on the base level of the house so going to um the rear I'll just go to the rear elevation so as we uh discussed before we have the deck the sliding doors to the deck from the um the living area the kitchen and then the bedroom above and then what we've done is we we've extended that Gable even to give it some more aesthetic appeal and break up that um facade with a couple um Gable ends and then we have the right side elevation we have uh show the different uh materials and we have vertical siding above the at the Gable ends and then a horizontal Hardy plank um on the first and second floor so um going to the left elevation similar to the right side and then uh we talked about the front elevation so that would be um the extent of the architectural um of this proposed um addition Alex uh one question for you would you agree that the new rear Edition proposed a substantially located place where the existing patio is now I would I'm not sure if you were asking Matt or myself oh I was actually asking Matt but that you answer my question okay just want uh and uh as far as a disturbance so you you would agree that it minimally disturbs a site right because it's already it's already in the uh almost the same position as the existing patio Matt yeah so so all right so basically what we wanted to do is minimize the impervious coverage and try and keep within that um lock coverage um ordinance and so what we we reduce some walkway and some Drive driveway and we've used some of that impervious that's existing uh which is above the old um patio area so um that would be the extent of the uh ovious coverage I believe it would be um uh in keeping with the the character of the neighborhood great I guess Matt while you're up um can you just walk us through the calculations that was one point in my letter I see you have a chart there I just want to understand the existing grade proposed grade and you know how you arrived that uh a he calculations so we have the building elevation shown and we show the the proposed grades around each the corners so um Each corner has um the finished grade elevations and then we've transposed that onto the table for the left side right side and then we totaled uh those up averaging 103.8 the Ridge Route of of the the ridge would be 133.7k yeah so if you look at theg grading um if at the curb uh close to the to the front of the house we have about 102.9 um in the front yard and then in the back we have uh 3.7 uh so it's you know within 150 feet it's it's pretty flat yes it's 109 [Music] 103 that's it for me Mr chairman sorry okay Mr bar thank you um Mr Flores any questions for the architect yeah regarding the building P I only have one question so the elevations that you have proposed on your charge are those existing elevations or are are those going to be proposed elevations very close yeah you can go to your charge yeah well very close you have three you have you know just to exceed the the maximum bu High you have three inches to play around with you're going to be right on that so you have no much to play around with that's why I'm asking that question is that proposed elevations or that's existing elevations yes so the proposed or in the rectangles the existing are which have the little X's next to them so okay so in order for you to calculate the build the building about the dwelling high right now you're taking in consideration the proposed elevation not the existing yeah that's how we calculated it okay the variations are very so you're proposing some grading around the property then yeah we're regrading you know along the property but it's as you could see it's pretty flat it's not going to require any extent of bill or cut to achieve that and maybe I suggest you to show some of the grading in that area I mean we have been issues with neighbors complaining about run off in you know different locations in town so I'm sorry I would just suggest uh yeah to show where the regrading of the properties are going to be taking place at just to see how the runoff is going to affect them to the N to your neighbor to you know the neighbors uh it will be to the East and to the West yeah so it's pretty much it's pretty um there's not going to be like any extent of real grading where it's going to really pitch like drastically towards the neighbor's property it's it's basically what how it is now so um but we could provide a Swale around the house if if needed to address any drainage okay that that was my only comment um chairman okay thank you Mr Flores uh let me turn to the board now for questions to the architect uh Mr Gibbons I'll start with you please um okay so the the actual square footage of this house upon completion is how how large so we have a on the table let me go to um table here on the zoning uh worksheet so we have basically um 175 square feet and then the proposed would be 2512 square feet at the house itself that's just the footprint the footprint yeah the footprint so then is a lot larger than that so we yeah so we have the second floor um about 5,000 yeah I can get [Music] you yeah it's about uh well with the garage um so with the garage about 400 feet so you take about 4500 yeah okay um so one thing about your second floor just looking at your setup there um where does bedroom four go to the bathroom they would um that would basically we have an add ability to create a bath a bathroom if needed inside the bedroom um for that room we're not proposing anything right now that that should be noted I mean as as of right now that person's going through another bedroom or going downstairs into there's actually no full bath for that person to go into without going into someone's bedroom yeah we can add another bedroom there you've got a lot of lot of bedrooms and offices and just looking at it logically that doesn't make sense I think that's something that would need to be addressed prior to um that's what I have for now um but I I would you know I am concerned that the house might be completely knocked down and the the sidey yard setbacks that Mr Baron's brought up um could be a problem because this house obviously it's a pre-existing non-conforming but this house sits very close to that property line um and I would just be concerned that all these walls get knocked down and we build a house very large next to the properties um actually I did have another Point um you know we're going we're going a bit over and we have a pretty large deck um has has any thought been given to lessen the size of the home to get to to the 35 because this is a this is a pretty large house for Riveredge um and a pretty large deck in the backyard so is any consideration given to getting yourself within 35% um basically I mean we're three we're 3.4% over um and I you know the applicant wants to you know make good use out of that rear deck um for furniture and and other things so that was the intention um to create that deck in the back I'm just looking at a five a five bedroom house um plus an office plus a 300 foot deck in the backyard on an oversized lot I know it's a pie shape I get that um you know but it is still on an oversiz lot and a very large house not um Ry uh Mr given as a matter of fact I have the applicant does want to say a few words as to uh reducing the size if need be do you mind if I bring him up just for the inter uh for like a minute well I mean we can I don't Mr chair you can if we want to go that route or let everyone else ask their questions I can wait on my answer for now yeah why don't you let's let's uh Mr coros why don't we give the board a chance to you can hear the board I can certainly wait yeah you can hear the board's Collective and then go from there if that's the case I'm good for right now okay thank you Mr given uh I'm gonna turn to Mr Craig yeah um couple of questions if you could go to uh the zoning requirements initially Mr um Ros you said you were only asking for one variance two variances is only the 27% but obviously the lot coverage and the improved lot coverage are both Varian is required correct correct just uh two Varian is required just the improved lot and the uh maximum lot coverage right now just just for to kind of [Music] um maybe underline or emphasize what Mr Gibbons was mentioning you know this is an oversized lot it's roughly 33% larger than the typical requirement as far as lot size here right and if I look at a if I look at a 7500 squ foot lot and I I look at 35% coverage that's about 2600 square feet um if I look at the 10,000 Plus Foot lot at the 30 8% that's just a hair under 4,000 square feet which is more than 50% more uh coverage than we would have on a typical lot so even though he's saying you know it's only 3% over what uh required it's a lot of ground coverage and I I think you know from the standpoint of a lot of the issues that we've had in this town as far as um um you know runoff Etc um you know it's something that we have spent a lot of time on uh trying to to minimize the impact and you know again with with the size of the house that you're looking at uh with three dining areas four bedrooms and a lot of things going on there I would hope there would be some effort to bring that within the 35% because it's it would be I think I think it would be important sure the second question I have and I don't know if who would speak to this but um I I'm I would like to understand what the justification is here for for the variants you know is there again some public good that that that comes out of this or is there some hardship we're addressing but you know we need some justification to say what is the you know what is the reason for the variance request and why we should Grant it um so if you could talk to that yeah um our planner Alex Dory will testify as to that point okay and um as far as the uh you know I realized River Edge this my first time front of River Edge I see that your concern is the runoff um I'm actually uh texting my client as we speak and he is amicable to uh you know considering reducing parts of the home and the uh just to make sure that you know the board is comfortable knowing that uh the applicant is seeking actively is going to seek actively should this application be approved to accommodate for this uh larger than usual uh site and um make sure that this runoff issue does does not come up in the future can I just pause there unless you have any further questions Mr Craig NOP I'm good okay I'm just going to suggest if the applicant's willing to reduce it there's you know an opportunity to have a fully conforming dwelling and not you know take this off the board's agenda so I mean do you have any specifics about what you're willing your client's willing to offer at this point or right you know I'd hate to spend another hour and just speculate I mean is it better for you guys to regroup and and come back with a specific plan or potentially even just come back with a conforming plan and we deal with it at the building department I mean it's certainly up to your client if I was there I could speak to him let me shoot him a text really quick if you just give me 60 Seconds Mr Gibbons is there a way we could chat in a separate room the architect and the applicant and I um typically I would you know kind of pull them aside and whisper in their ear but just want to ask a few questions it'd be easy to speak to them vocally instead of texting all right tell you tell you what we'll do then in this case um all right it's 8:45 um would 10 minutes work for you that's more than enough absolutely all right so what what we'll do is we'll we'll we'll take a brief adjournment and we'll let you guys caucus and we'll have everybody reconvene at 8:55 excellent thank you so much okay we have a motion from the board toov there a second second thank you Mr Craig all in favor I all right we stand in adjournment for 10 minutes let see everybody back at 8:55 thank you so [Music] much sry for we're in you're not going to go with tomorrow correct okay f you don't have any bud or okay folks if you're listening maybe you could just start to come back online start your video again Ryan and Jim you guys around Gary just Gary if you start your video I think you're here okay looks like we've got Chris we're back everyone back okay time now is 8:56 p.m. like to reconvene the meeting of Municipal lers Board of the burough rived uh at 8:56 p.m Miss styley would you kindly call the role please yes Mr Mayor here Mr castlin here miss Boland here Mr merman here Mr cray here Mr Kellan oh he is here just un mute here um councilman here Mr Gibbons here Mr espo here all right everyone's back okay thank M NY Mr carosan uh thanks everyone uh sorry we reconvened um the architect is going to testify as to how far we're willing to reduce to make the project make sense so I'm going to bring up Javier and Matt again and they're going to testify as to um their reductions we'll call it okay so basically what we have um the building on the lock uh building coverage uh percentage we're over a 2.2% which um equals about uh 230 square feet uh what we're doing we'd like to do is um we cut that in half and make that um the most on the we take about 115 square feet off of the addition um so that would be 1.2 1.1% um on that um building area so we'd be closer in Conformity with the uh building area so we're taking three feet off what we Pro most likely going to do we want to do is take three feet off the right side of the rear Edition and three feet off the left side and reduce the size of those um of that and give more sidey yard also to those those um walls aren't you three point 3.4 feet off or 3.4 3.4% off not 2.4 yeah that's the lot coverage versus the improved lot coverage the lot coverage is 2.2 off the improved lot coverage is 34 yeah so they you need to address both sides of that so that would that would reduce the lot coverage all the impervious coverage all in um also with that so um it also UPS one and a half% um less would be less on that too so it'd be more Conformity with the improved blck coverage and the building coverage Mr Mr Evans could you show us on a plan because I'm not fully understanding what the proposal is okay um I got to share uh the plan hold B okay so looking at the worksheet we have um impervious coverage um we have uh looking at the maximum lot improved coverage we have 35% um and then we have 38.4% then we have 25% required and we have 27.2 so we're 2.2% over the lock coverage uh and what we would do is going to the rear addition we would take 3 feet off the left side three feet off the right side taking a total of six um by 20 square feet um that would reduce it and we would um looking for more closer to 1.1% and building coverage over the maximum yeah instead of 40 going to be [Music] 36 so it's one point it's 1.1% on the lot coverage that's being reduced that would be the same on the improved lot coverage so you'd only go from 38.4 to 37.3 correct yes so it's it's um would be more in in uh keeping with the those two numbers the 25 and 35 numbers yeah and remember that is more you know I was hoping to see a little more to be honest um you got a lot of house there you got 20 by 18 bedrooms you've got three dining areas you've got offices you've got I mean there's a lot of stuff going on here there's a big addition there's a big deck on the back and you basically are taking 120 square feet off it's it's a dominous number why don't we give uh let's give other board members a chance to uh provide some cont some context on this um let's see M Mr AR Kellan oh I think I was muted Mr I'm unmuted yep um I guess my question is more for the homeowner than the uh architect right now I mean I I agree with Mr cig that it's a huge house and seems to be a lot going on here and I guess my question that I'm gonna have is uh does he have a big family or is he gonna is this a house that he's gonna flip after it's done I'm curious as to you know where we're going with the hardship what the hardship would be uh if we you know if if he had to shrink this house down to something that was more in line with a typical Riveredge house maybe it's attorney can answer some of those questions or not otherwise I'll wait for the homeowner to come on hey I'm I'm here um with respect thank you uh I do have a large family uh my my parents live their currently right now um that's my my home since I was a child um been in the town for about over 15 years and my dream was to uh build a large home for my kids to go where I was in child my childhood home so so your parents are going to live there too my parents will live there yes my parents are there now and how many children do you have uh I have one child now and another on on the way God bless God bless okay um that's I'm good for now thank you okay Miss molan um yes I I I as far as the build the lot coverage and uh the lot being so large I I don't really think um I'm not comfortable going above the 25% for the lot coverage because um it doesn't leave room for anything else uh on the on the site itself um so I don't really see the hardship for the building coverage uh variance okay um chairman and the board so excuse me um I was actually speaking I was a mute though before uh Mr Aran came up I wanted to ask Matt um is there any further reductions we can make as far as the debt goes is there is there any more room that we could just cut off just to make that I guess make the 25% is that possible Matt well yeah we have the deck right now is 25 by 12 um that's uh about 600 square feet um um let me just see hold on 25 by 12 um it's 300 square feet I'm sorry and um so what we could do is reduce the deck also um and make it um 20 uh 20 by 12 I mean the 12 is nice to have because you want to be able to have some circulation and furniture on the deck also so um 20 would be uh the width uh taking five feet off that so um 200 footage yeah what does at land is as far as lot coverage so we going from the deck we had 300 going down to 200 140 square feet um and that would uh reduce the coverage in in yeah okay uh I guess anyone anyone from the board Mr gibons is that Mrs Boland is that uh does it appease the board as far as um I understand the the board wants you know the law coverage to be in line it we are running it pretty we're trying to run it as tight as possible but is that sufficient for the board I think my calculations would that would reduce the lot coverage to 26 two about okay if that's correct I think I mean I assume Miss bowan would say the same this is just it's just a very large house and again we haven't heard I understand you have you know the has a large family but this is a an extremely large house for six people if I'm doing the math right um a large deck it's it's it's a lot to ask here to go to go over on a large on a large property a 5,000 square foot house is larger than most houses in town um I just think you're asking a lot I think they're I think you could get this to a reasonable number of 25 and 35 and still have a very large house um on the property that's my opinion Mr Coran I'm I'm gonna sort of tag on to what Mr Barons was saying earlier I I'd like to offer you the the opportunity I think at this point to consider whether you and your client your professionals want to go back and reconsider your application given your what you've been hearing thus far from the few members of the board who've had the opportunity to actually uh give comment uh at least in so far as the Architects uh testimony is concerned um I think you you I you I think there's uh some reconsideration may be appropriate at this point on on your application uh and I offer that to you at this point um if that's something you would uh like us to to consider certainly we could consider carrying the application for you give the give you the opportunity to have more time to caucus with your app with your client and the professionals right and Mr chair I mean you still have just a logistical issue upstairs of that's right of a bedroom that doesn't have a bathroom so the plans even as is are not feasible for a family yeah I I would strongly urge you at this point Mr croen to consider that option sure carrying it does that mean we'd have the reen notice no no right unless you you are adding additional variances you wouldn't okay um give me one moment please let me just mute myself and talk to my client sure thank you so much this hi everyone yes sir uh spoke to my client and he he is willing to reduce it down to the conform percentages for the 25% 35% lock coverage um I now I'm just going to ask you I guess can you advise me is it is it appropriate to get the planning testimony out uh tonight or should we I'm going to defer to our professionals but from from my opinion I would recommend that uh you know corrected plans showing what is actually going to be sure the proposal be provided to the board for review prior to you know proceeding further but I'll defer to Mr Barons and Mr Flores well I mean if the applicant's going to conform to the zoning ordinance I'm not sure that it needs to come back to the board H which means that they'd be submitting fully compliant plans which potentially could be approved administratively obviously we'd have to address certain issues as far as you know no uh no permitted regrading of the property we need uh framing details and and uh some better height calculations but if you submit a fully conforming application it would no longer be a board application in my opinion correct so so my recommendation was just would be to carry this matter to the next meeting just on the agenda no other notice is needed and then if when you uh just submit a letter to Ed alter saying that the applicant is going to submit conforming plans and that the application shall be withdrawn Marina can I just tell you the next meeting has already three applications it it's just for care just for administrative purposes just on the record tonight we're going to carry the application to that meeting and then you can submit a letter to um to Ed alter our board clerk just saying that the application will be withdrawn because the applicant's going to submit conforming plans and if things change if you don't want to um submit conforming plans you want to continue with this application um just let Ed know and we'll reschedule you and just car you um to a future date that makes sense yeah okay that sounds great Marina for the Public's benefit what's the next meeting date that it would be carried at to November 29th so can we take a is that that's what your would you like to do um tonight okay okay please okay okay so we'll need a a motion to carry from the board please so Mr chairman I'll make said motion that this application be carried to the next meeting would okay thank you Mr Murman is there a second second I think I have uh Mr gibons on a second just we just do a Voice vote yep a voice Voice vote is fine okay all in favor uh any any oppose any abstain okay motion passes the application Mar you want want to go ahead and make the announ I can I can read it in um the application for ketta Investments LLC 298 Taft Road Block 1108 lot 28 will be carried to the November 29th hearing date um with no further notice required if anyone from the public is here to comment on this application you'll have to come back um on that date but please check the agenda as this matter may be withdrawn okay right great thank you everybody great love you all okay on our next excuse me next item on our agenda this evening under new business is the applicant Joe and Deborah dabd property is 390 fth Avenue this is block 906 lot 39 applications is for installation of a new in ground pool surrounding patio and related equipment uh seeks variances for improved lock coverage bul and yard requirements as well I believe the applicant is here this evening Miss Dy good evening hello um if you please raise your right hand I'll s you in person in the attendees section Michael all right I will bring him promote him to panelist 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 I do all right and so um could you please state your name spell your last name and provide your address for the record Michael panot is my last name spelled p a n as a Nancy a y i o t is in tom o u and I live at uh 432 Fairmount AV in Jersey City um all right and the applicant as well debah D spelled D A bdee 390 Fifth Avenue River Edge New Jersey all right and um will you be both just providing fact testimony or will is there expert testimony as well I'm her uh I'm her witness okay the so could you provide just some information as your regarding your title and qualifications yeah sure I'm uh one of the general managers of panic okay all right all right good evening uh Miss dabd I if you would uh for the benefit of the board uh give uh the description of the application you submitted and what your proposed uh modifications are to your property I think in particular one thing if you wouldn't mind if if you could clarify for us I know there's I think Mr baren mentioned earlier there was a question as to which uh plan you've now submitted that you're seeking for uh the board's review I think we've seen a couple different iterations so if you you know wouldn't mind as part of your statement just clarifying which which plan you you like us to take into account Absolutely I'll start off with that the plan that was submitted in hard copy 16 inv versions that is the accurate plan it's dated 725 just to be clear is that the plan prepared by the engineer ER by pool town I'm just yeah this is a plan provided by pool toown by the engineer actually it's by provided by James Bella Jr okay so just just so we make sure that has a revision date on it of 10123 is that the plan uh the one that I'm looking at has a revision date of 72523 that has a uh infiltration trench on it and an existing uh C oh the actual day but the bottom you should have you know if I'm we're looking at the correct oh theis the revision day yeah correct y that's correct 1123 10123 okay thanks okay so the proposal is to provide an INR pool as shown in the the plan Pro provided and we are seeking um additional lot coverage I don't really have much other detail aside from the fact that the patio is actually going in the same place of the existing patio so it shouldn't impact any of the coverage um and there will be an infiltration trench that's added to handle the seepage pit that is being re uh removed well uh actually let me let me get involved there's there's actually a second seepage pit that's uh not shown in the position where the pool is on uh older plans it is on the property we we marked it out I do not see it on here we have an existing seepage pit that's going to remain the the other seepage pit would actually be in the pool's body and so what we ended up doing was creating a plan to allow water runoff to go into an infiltration trench That's rated at about the same gallonage if not more than the existing pen all right do either of you have the capability to share your plan I could do it if you need me to uh Deborah do you have it so there are two pages to this so this is the first page all right so maybe um again just walk us through it I know you mentioned there's an existing patio um which you're essentially replacing with a new Patio Pool yes currently this the backyard is situated so that the patio that is drawn here is around the same size as a patio that exists and there are two seepage pits of a um 1500 and 500 gallons one is here and one is approximately here so this one would remain the pool would basically um concrete around the pool would basically Connect into the new proposed patio right here and then once this uh infiltration trench is added as Michael just mentioned um that will take care hopefully of the second seepage pit that is uh getting removed well I'm going to jump on the drainage um so it was brought my I'm sorry can you hear me guys yes uh you know ail it was brought to my attention that in a previous application I don't know the exact dat you were approv to have two cish speed in the back one for one for 500 gallons and another one for 1500 gallons for a totaling of 2,000 gallons right now I know it doesn't show there but I you know we also perform some inspections and we know that one of the c p is going to be affected by the location of the pool all right now the calculations that I reviewed that have been prepared by uh James imas kelan Jr uh does not provide sufficient uh storage for the uh impair for the improved life coverage that you're seeking for I know I know you provideing infiltration trange is not big enough uh just doing just just throwing numbers right there so you you previous you previous were supposed to have 2,000 uh gallons totally in the backyard with a new imperious uh with a new pool that you're proposing and the new par that you're adding in you're supposed to add another roughly another thousand gallons more so tot totally roughly 3,000 uh gallons for for the lb the infiltration uh the proposed in infiltration trange is just only providing 56 uh QB feet which is totaling of I can tell you right now the number just give me my calculator so that would be let me see 56 * 7.48 so that's like around 400 uh gallons you're sure by 600 gallons and plus whatever cphp is being affected by whatever cphp is being affected by the pool not to mention that you're seeking for a variance so 47% on you know on The Improv L coverage that's all that's what I wanted to bring it up that you know you were supposed to you existing supposed to be two more catch basing in there and then you're supposed to add some measurements to capture the extra uh improved L coverage that you need to be in there uh which totaling of 3,000 gallons which you don't provide that if I'm looking at if I'm looking at these plans correctly uh is it okay if I ask you a quick question sure if we were to provide another seage pit onto the plan uh some somewhat above where the existing is like right where uh the mouse is we put another correct tank there along with the infiltration trench would that meet would that be sufficient for drainage well you you will have to provide the calculations but if you provide you know a, gallon speed there should be more than enough however I want to point something out that you have to confirm that you have a really good you know that you're going to be able to infiltrate this through the soil so you SC some test you know some uh soil testing $300 $400 which just confirmed what the permeability rate of the soil is to make sure it's going to work because there is no point of you putting the CP if it's not going to infiltrate so understood that's it that's that's the only comment I have Baron any other questions uh I mean now the application is pretty straightforward I guess just some observ and Miss stab you could you know confirm or deny either way but I guess along with the pool you're proposing a 5 foot high solid fence is that accurate corre and I I think when we initially spoke we discussed relocating the pool potentially to avoid having to remove trees in the back is that I guess part of the decision to locate the pool closer to the house that is correct also okay so um I mean board members beyond that it's uh it's a pool application with the patio so um turn it over to you thank you Mr bars just one quick question what is the the the percentage the loot coverage that being proposed now what's the actual number because we we conflicting numbers here I just want to make I would I would rely on the engineers calculations um when there were two different plans with two different numbers that's where I thought there was a discrepancy but in looking at um again the engine engineering plan dated revised October 11th 23 it does show a proposed law coverage calculation of 42.4% so that appears to be the coverage calculation okay so that that's the number we're working okay right and um okay I'll just I mean I did some rough calculations um the new pool on concrete it shows as 961 Square ft I believe the pool and you guys the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the body of the water is approximately 13x 30 or 390 Square ft and that equates to about 4.6% of the property that sounds about right okay and the so it should be it should be 13 and yeah 13 and change by 40 correct by 30 I'm sorry correct by 30 okay and the we'll call it the squarish area of the patio directly out of the rear door is about 15 feet by 17 feet uh I don't have that in front of me um but that seems that seems about correct if you're looking yes okay uh thank you Mr baren um if I may could I start with Miss Bolan please um have you considered um taking away the existing patio or at at least reducing it significantly to try to lower your lot coverage request um I'm willing to do that yes that's my only question okay thank you uh Mr espito I'm okay okay uh Mr Mayor so um so if I understand it right we're talking about 42.4 for improved lot coverage when our our our our maximum is 35 and you currently have 37.2 is is are those numbers correct can you hear me yeah Mr parents we have a yeah I'm not sure who that was directed but uh I believe that's accurate yes yeah B you see the plan there is existing L coverage numbers in the plan I mean you can grow up a little bit yeah there you go you see that there you go existing light coverage the first uh uh the first uh column and then you see the percentage the botom 34.8 so they're under 35% as right now so Jason normally uh when Mr cost is here he talks about um when we're going when we're being when we're being asked to consider going over improved lot coverage he talks about the benefit of uh CIT pits and how it can offset or make um holotable a number above 35 I don't know if I want to go all the way to 42.4 but Mr Flores um if they came up to the 3,000 gallons which I think you testified to before would that be enough to uh offset some I think the 42.4 is is too high but would that would that what sort of what sort of flow to the neighbors would that offset would it set offset all the flow of uh water to the neighbors or some in your professional opinion is 3,000 um seepage pit and and trench if if they got up to that is that uh how much of a burden or a nuisance would it be to the neighbors well they will the first thing that they have to do is in soil uh soil testing to see if they're going if it's going to percolate you know if the test comes you know that they don't have percolation at all uh then the water instead of going downwards is going to go sideways so then it's going to affect the neighbors then it's going to affect the neighbors uh that's why one of the conditions is they move for with the application should be that some sort of testing just to confirm that they you know they have percolation in there otherwise doesn't make sense to have a cish speed um and something else that I want to point it out is that uh Tom you can correct me on this if I'm wrong but the river AG does not uh does not take credit for a water body on a pool like well like Tom said uh I think it is like roughly 400 square feet uh which represent 4.5% of the of the uh of the improved FL coverage as a water it's not it's just water it's not that is they're building something else so it's just there so the order do not take credit for that like in different towns you're going to put a pool the water body doesn't counts an imperial L coverage it's just any any Improvement around the pool that counts for it but I believe River does not takeing consideration that right Tom well the board has discussed this uh fairly recently and it's been decided that the the body of the water does count toward impervious okay because it's not impervious it's improved law coverage and I think historically that's been true okay so uh like you know like then to put it in terms of like if they need a 3,000 gallons they might not need a 3,000 gallons you know at all because you know the the the the water body of the pool is not going to be drained into this cish pit it's going to stay it's going to be standing right there so it's all the new pario and the C that is going around and I guess the existing roof leaders of the of the house that need to be connected to this CP uh in reality I see an increase of if I'm if I'm doing this correct it's going to be we're going to increase from 34.8% to roughly like a 37% that's another 400 square feet that they need to take in consideration because you see the new pool is 961 well that's the new pull in the concrete but the the water body is roughly like 400 square feet okay uh that's like like like somebody pointed out what if you get rid of the party in the back yeah then you're getting closer to 35% there yeah because that is it is my concern what how it affects the neighbors plus I'm not quite sure I I'd like to hear testimony on uh what is the positive effect as well as what is the hardship that's my comments thank you the positive uh just to me or to the you're asking the uh that would be to the client the client applic to the applicant um one sure one comment I would like to make is that um in relation to the neighbors everybody um the neighbors are on Higher Ground than our property So currently nothing that we have on our yard runs into the neighbors it pretty much runs towards the street we have uh French trains around the side of the house already that we installed after moving in and I we've been here for about four years and I think at this point we've seen how the water patterns have run and we it's never gone into the neighbors and uh I think if anything theirs go into our yards as we're at the low Point um we will based on the pool we will add a fence and I think we will um improve at least some of our uh some of our privacy with the neighbors and by adding the fence we currently have nothing our yards kind of run into each other and it's very open um I don't know if this is relevant but we do seem to have a lot of deer coming through the yard so I think that's one another Plus for me because I I have a family that I think um lives back there so these are definite uh pluses at least for from my perspective thank you no further question or comment okay thank you Mr Mayor uh Mr CRA yeah um question the existing seepage pits that you have um were they installed in a recent uh renovation or construction or when did they get put in place uh prior to us purchasing the house in 2019 so somebody had uh renovated the house that was here and then they were added I think maybe 2018 if I had to okay estimate okay so it wasn't a renovation you had done so that previous uh variance that would have been needed um for the ground coverage you were part of that process because that happened before you on the house correct uh if you had to kind of throw a dart um you said you'd be willing to look at resizing that that uh patio what uh what kind of change would you might that want to give up I guess so currently it pretty much looks this way from the the previous Builders I'd be willing to cut it back until the the stairs so right about if that helps can I can I just maybe offer something um if if you are talking about whittling away coverage um you know certainly you'd want a functional patio and and I'm wondering if maybe the concrete around the pool would make a more sensible tra I don't want to speak for The Bard or you know and this may not even uh resolve the issue but you know as far as tradeoffs go if you know you might want to play place to at least put a table and chairs and a deck not a deck a grill um you know so if you cut it back I think like you were saying basically from the right side of the patio to the stairs uh I just want you to make sure you understand what you may or may not be agreeing to that's that's my point um I do understand that once that happens it won't be functional as a patio but um I'd be very open to looking into a a more narrow surround of the pool if that if that could be the trade-off so if we took I think I believe it's um three feet surround it's three feet all the way around yeah and the to have a accessible walkway I don't I just as a pool guy I just don't recommend less than two because then then you were starting play with where we can walk around the pool um is there an option also if I cut back the patio entirely if there was an option to do something that is not considered impervious I would look into that just to kind of make up for it where it wouldn't be a concrete patio if that becomes the issue I mean the the only alternative would be lawn or like a mulch are you know something more or less that's natural or a landscaped area and uh again I don't know if that's something you want to commit to right it's not my preference I'll be honest um I guess maybe the question should be how much more do I need to cut back in order to make it um passable because if it if it doesn't need to cut back as far as I'm suggesting then you know perhaps that's the question well I think certainly thus far you've heard that you know the what's being proposed now is you know needs to come back closer to what what is what's required you know at the um so the closer yeah I don't you know require some math um M Mr chair maybe the thing to do is is let's let's go through the rest of the board and get get their input and we kind of come back to uh you know those those questions Mr given since you raised your hand why don't you uh take I I I think I I did some math um it looks like the property is 84 8,485 Square ft um I took that off this current drawing um you know my personal Comfort level is around 40% so if if I did the math right 8485 times 0.024 I came out with 203 square feet um someone tell me if I'm wrong with that number but personally I wouldn't care where you got the where you got the that from whether it was from the pool from the concrete around it from the patio um you know you know personally I'd be comfortable if it was if it was at that number and again I don't care where you get it from um patio concrete pool whatever makes sense M Mr Eric Kellan the only uh you know we've discussed these pool the pool issue time and time again we really never came to a conclusion on how we were going to deal with a body of water uh because some towns don't consider it as was testified by our our engineer and some do like Riveredge so you know cutting back the the the concrete around a pool I think is somewhat dangerous for kids walking around it and uh you know making the p patio kind of unusual unusable I don't know um I I personally don't have too much of a problem the way it is I don't like going over 40% uh like everybody else but when when there's a pool involved I tend to be personally a little more flexible that's all I have to say okay thank you uh councilman uh thank you Mr chairman all right um I wouldn't cut around the pool the concrete around the pool so quickly in the winter you may want to get one of those Winter Covers that require you to drill into it and have some uh area to be able to lock the winter cover in so uh you may want to talk to your full people about that I'm not look like everybody else here I'm not thrilled with anything over 40% and and frankly I've maintained all along that if the town has said 35% then in order to go over 35 5% we have to see some sort of hardship and certainly we have to want want to see some sort of improvement for the rest of uh Riveredge and we understand that it would certainly improve your circumstance and we appreciate the fact that that's why you're coming um have you considered a smaller pool it's a sizable pool that you're putting in I understand you may want to do laps but a smaller pool you can still have fun in and enjoy that may be something to consider uh one of the questions I have for the professionals is just looking at the size of the backyard is there sufficient room and I just don't know what the size of SE C pitch pits are but is there sufficient room to put the C pitch pits that would be able to handle the Overflow in that area that we're looking at it's going to be very tight but if the soil conditions comes acceptable he's going to be able to install 2,000 gallons zish pit in the back and 2000 is going to be sufficient 2000 is going to be more than enough yes um I'm I'm I'm re I'm R reading the application and then they were approve for, 1500 and then he need another like th000 gallons so and he they got the Paro back to 2,000 around 2,000 gallons is what she's gonna need okay so two two cish pits all right I you know I I Echo everybody else's comments and uh certainly I agree with the mayor that uh we need to hear about some sort of hardship in order to at least consider this thank you okay thank you couns uh Mr merman okay um I might want to consider reducing the pool size but I got a question from Michael from p toown is this a uh gunite pool uh cast in place or is this a uh preab that you uh bringing into the site this is a vinyl ler sing pool a vinyl liner okay so basically the pool size is fixed is that it uh we'd be able to amend the pool size um I was actually I was talking with uh my my client before uh maybe a 12 by3 would help get the uh pool size down to under 40 and then also red uh reducing slightly the area around the pool would also help uh curb a lot of the lock coverage that would exist without without creating too much of a change in the pool but it would still it would help uh it would help okay personally I uh from where I'm sitting I like to see you reduce the pool size um you you my experience with pools is you probably want to keep that walkway with and the councilman also gave you a good reason for your winterization um one thing I would like to expl more slightly with you um because you're coming up you folks are coming up with a hybrid drainage system uh SE system here including your infil infiltration trench right what filter medium in are you proposing on your uh on on your uh filter are are you got rapid sand di Tous or what uh so we we were going to fill with uh well this is the engineer in drawing and the engineer uh pretty much talked to us about smaller stone rock uh to go into the trench and basically to go in no that's not what I mean for you're you're you're you're on your pool filter oh on the actual pool filter sand s okay all right because I was concern concerned about backwashing diet tomati Earth into your hybrid raid system here will we be able to switch that to a uh to a cartridge filter and it it has the same if not better efficacy than a sand filter so that wouldn't be a hard change to make no that that's that's your call I I I just didn't I just did not want to have the possibility of fouling your hybrid drainage system here understood understood okay all right I didn't want that to be overlooked because down the road that could be very serious um yes I I I don't know if I mentioned it I appr lean for the 40% I think um if you reduce the pool um to to your next size you might be able to keep more of that patio at the house so I'd like you folks to explore those uh those features that's where I stand Mr chairman thank you Mr Murman and I would concur with uh what the board has already expressed in terms of size reduction for the pool um as well I have nothing further to add at this point um let's uh I guess the the question then for the applicant um is that would you consider reducing the pool size then given what you've heard thus far from the board yes um I believe that uh Michael had said that 12 x30 is an excise down and if between that and reducing some of the patio would get me to that 40% I can do that okay okay um at this point I think let's open up to do we have let's open up to the public styley do we have anybody in the public yes um could you just stop sharing your screen um thank you there we go um yes so we can open to the public okay I have a motion to open to the public public please thank you Mr CRA there a second second thank you m ban all in favor I any pose any abstain all right at this time we are now open to the public for comment on this application so we do have a member of the public um if you would like to comment please raise your hand on Zoom there we go okay and you can please just state your name um and provide your address for the record sure my name is Lori sella 285 Princeton Drive um I just actually became involved in these land use because I got a letter uh two weeks ago and I spoke at that meeting and I and I didn't realize that the uh variance granting I actually thought it was really more for hardships and for very extenuating circumstances and I'm kind of realizing now that over the last five years we've gone from 30% to 35% and now it seems to be the acceptable number is 40 so what I'm concerned with as uh a resident of the town is that we're actually getting this oversized develop the development that's happening is is really really at a proportion to the lot sizes and it's trending up and up and up and in in a very short period of time and I you know obviously the previous property was a situation that um you know speaks to that point um and it's just concerning in general that um a lot of these things are people's wants I appreciate that you want your home to be your Oasis and you know where you have tranquility and and I get that but I I don't know if there's a point that we have to start thinking about limiting what is being allowed on every single lot in town because if we all went to 40 42 45% this town would have a very different flavor as far as development the size of the homes and um I brought it up at the last meeting but and I'm not saying specifically on Fifth but on ta there are Valley there's been some major flooding um the soil here does not the water does not permeate the soil well because it's a very Sandy clay based soil in my particular neighborhood I can't speak to um every other neighborhood in town um it's called Riveredge I mean there's just a lot of Brooks and and water flowing through the town and and underground and water tables and I feel like um just this level of development and kind of accepting now 40 across the board when 35 is what is um supposedly the limit is something we should really think about and keep in check and I do appreciate all of you putting in your time and looking at this in depth but I I just have a concern in general about I'm really going to call it the overdevelopment of these lots and particularly the Lots on my side of town because they are the ones that are you know the 75 Frontage and you know 115 or larger going back and um covering these Lots with the size of these buildings is um seemingly out of proportion um to what the property um should handle and I appreciate you guys um just really proceeding a little more cautiously and granting these variances a little more care so thank you for listening thank you thank you do we have anybody else uh no no one else is in attendance okay all right at this point we'll take a motion to close to the public moved gr are a second b a second all in favor I oppose obain okay this time we're now closed to the public for this application Mr merman do we need any further discussion or are you ready for a motion well let me open it to the board we have any further com comments questions from the board well have we decided anything on are we sticking with the 42.4 is has the applicant decided on any reduction well yeah I think that's going to be the I think the oh sorry I didn't mean to interrup I thought the app had agreed to that but miss miss dabd if you would confirm what you're willing to agree to yes I do agree to that and uh there are two more sizes 12 by 24 is another pool size that would be sufficient and I I do believe that um having a pool of this size is not a huge impact on the yard currently I have a yard that is not really usable with having two children and you know there's grass there and there's a small patio but there isn't really a lot of other use so I think that adding this feature was you know helping to make better use of uh the property so at a 12 by 24 size I posi Mr Flores I don't know if you can do some some quick math on that what where does that put us in terms of coverages okay so if okay so I just did a really quick match so in order for her to be under the 40% she needs to redu roughly 210 square feet uh just doing the M really quick if she goes for a pool size of 12 by 24 and we deduct that from the new pool and concrete uh propath coverage which is 961 she is reducing like around 288 square feet which she only needs to reduce to 110 so she's there okay think that's I don't know if that's right okay maybe 20 30 30 by 13 is 3 390 this is just the pool not the not the not the the concrete and the 24 by 12 would be 288 correct 288 correct and then the concrete would be what would the reduction in concrete be with that if we kept okay so okay so like I I I just did it this way so 42.4% right now is where she is at right now right so if we want to be if we want to be in uh if we want to reduce that into 40% is we only have to reduce by 2.4% 2 2.4% out of the 8,485 square ft is only 210 if I did the ma that correct so 2.4 time a 4 A5 yeah that's uh 200 2007 ft that you need to reduce right so it 12 by 24 fo pool so she just saved 102 feet right with the pool and then she'll save some with the with the concrete because she's going to have less concrete just for a i how but she's GNA she's going to save some by having a smaller pool because the smaller surround right corre 280 that 24 well the perimeter will go from 76 feet I think it'll be 216 feet of perimeter is that is that correct right because you'd have 24 * 2 48 + 12 just trying to get an accurate number of what the concrete around that would be seems like we're getting close to 40% so that will be we need to reduce let me see one more time4 84 85 that's 23 ft out of that number yeah he need another 100 ft roughly to be Ru on the concrete so if you took a little bit off the the walkway around the pool made like two or two and a half feet wide I think you're pretty much add that number if you because the the pool at three feet is still going to be smaller just for the fact of a smaller pool cor right if I did my M correct she just right just there she's she's saving a 280 square feet 288 square feet I'm sorry because the existing P that you have is start by 30 she's going to reduce that by 12 by 24 so 39 minus 288 that's right there she have she have 1002 just on the just on the pool alone and she needs another 100 square ft just to be on 40% so she takes the perimeter of another foot of the walkway and let's see another I don't know how big is a part existing part I don't have exact Dimension they don't show that on the SL how big is your part by any chance the existing partio you s Dimension don't have that on hand just looking I think you get I think just by keeping it three feet wide around the pool not reducing that yet you save another 42 feet she plus plus 102 so we're like 60 feet off if I'm if I'm doing this right correct she's on 144 she she needs another 60 square feet to be taken off of the body or or a little bit off the exterior but I guess we have some reasons why you might not want to do that excrete on the right now right now by you reducing the pool you're saving 100 100 100 square feet by taking one foot off the pool and reducing the the pool itself you're having another 42 square feet so you're still show by 60 square feet now I don't know how big is a patio the back if we were to do the patio all the way around the pool and um we so the way I I do this math is I take the pool size and then I add six feet because it's three feet on either side then we also have the corners which are 36 we're somewhere around 136 square feet taken out by making the pool 12 x 24 and what's the number that we have to be at if we were to take out a sliver of conc right in that main body on the the little area where she's going to put chairs if we take out like a foot or two there I think we should be right right where we need to be I don't know how why how I don't know how why is the there by 16 if I'm not mistaken 13 by 16 just said MH can can we do can we do a motion and pass this with saying that the pool will be reduced to 24 by 12 and the lot coverage to be accept 40% yeah we've we have done that in the past where we've said they can play with numbers maximum permitted is 40% they can the applicant can decide how to reduce if that's even small may not want to take a foot off the edge of the pool she might you know whatever whatever makes sense for for the applicant might be better than us deciding now what she needs to do get to your 40% and that's what we can approve you for if that's what's acceptable support yeah so long as we've got something that there's there's something to work toward yeah that that makes sense all right that's the way I would make the motion Mr chairman but I've got one other hold on Mr merman missley I just oh sorry I just had one clarification um the board engineer Mr Flores mentioned and um doing soil um soil testing and I just wanted to make sure that the applicant would agree that to the condition that any approval um of the board would be conditioned on you conducting the soil testing to determine that um the soil is would be able to handle the additional seepage pit and that you would work with the burrow engineer um regarding the installation and sizing of the seepage pits and any drainage and storm water issues would you you agree to that would you agree to those conditions sorry sorry there we go all right thank you Mr M um I got one condition for um one question for Jason and and Michael from the pool Town um the infiltration trench what would be the clearance to the uh adjacent property line in fee because we might have to we might have to give them a very they need they need they need to get rid of that uh I I you know my my suggestion to the board is that the infiltration trench needs to be they need to eliminate that they just need to they need to place two more two c HPS to address all the storm water runoff in the property so two c pits total two c pit total yeah you know th000 you know two feet around I mean um on for some for some reason I have a PL done by pool town which shows a SE pit uh with a th000 SE pit gallon that's that's a SE pit that was that was one of my earlier proposals to just put in a separate SE pit and after talking with the engineer he had said that the infiltration trench would actually be superior uh based on the problem is that he only used two two inches for a storm you know and he only used the the extras the extra extra imperious coverage and he didn't take in consideration the removal of the existing c p in there so that's why understood but it's the proximity to the property line I don't I don't recommend the infiltration TR to be there just get rid of it and then just put the cish pit as long as the soil testing works I I would agree with that from in my professional opinion as well so the total gallons are 3,000 corre um including what Bas you know what what's going to happen is uh you're going to get an approval I guess and you're gonna you're going to come out with a with a right uh coverage which is going to be like around 40% right so based on that we we can work together in order to get the exact number of CPS that you're going to need in there I don't know if that can be added as a condition of the resolution or not but okay so is it my understanding that this infiltration trench will is going to be replaced with seage pits that seems to be that seems to be the proposal yes okay that's good wonderful um is is that acceptable um to you Miss Davy yes okay okay [Music] um I'm just reading one of Tom's comments all right so we we don't have a problem with the patio setback from uh from property lines so I guess the only variance we have is the lot coverage correct that's my understanding y okay Point yeah 4% okay um so Mr chair let's Mr chairman let's make a mo uh a motion that for the uh DB day property at 395th Avenue and riveridge which is a block 906 lot 39 uh that the board Grant a lot coverage uh improv lot coverage not to exceed 40% where which would include pool sry not exceed 40% that the home own and their design professionals will adjust pool size walkway sizes uh and Patio accordingly to uh achieve that 40% and it's also understood that the drainage will be re will be revised to include SE pits only to accommodate that uh amount needed for the 40% I think that about covers it I think we also need something on the soil testing for the pur oh the soil testing yes yes well actually when you look at Mr cost's uh um letter he he has his his comments are in there so I would include um conforming to the uh comments of Mr Ker's uh uh review letter which also addresses other other needs of um soil movement and so forth I think that covers it and Marina do we need to just clarify you know which plan we're actually approving tonight done that sufficiently um I think that that's sufficient the one that was actually included in the application packet that was stapled together not um not the pool time plan okay pool Town plan yes and I'll note that in our resolu any resolution okay with that motion is there a second from the board than think I was Mr Craig miss steinley when you're ready all right Mr Mayor yes all right Mr castlin yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr Craig yes Mr Kellan yes councilman yes Mr Gibbons yes and Mr Esposito yes all right the motion passes congratulations thank you everyone for yes sck enjoy your pool thank you very much guys thank you appreciate this you um real quick before we adjourn folks um just a reminder just that uh uh Ed does uh a lot of work to make sure that we have materials for um the hearings he does leave them at the police dispatchers desk um readily available just going to remind everybody to the extent you can please do go inad and pick those up um they are there they're available for um for for your benefit of course um but uh uh just want to make that reminder and announcement to everybody with that we are at 10:09 um I appreciate everybody hanging in and uh look for a motion to join I moved think I got Mr Cay as a first and Miss Bolan as a second all in favor Iain we stand in Jour at 10:09 pm thank you everybody congratulations on everybody thank you yes congratulations mayor thank you all I appreciate it night night