this is the uh Municipal land use Board of the borrow Rivers today is Wednesday March 27th 2024 and the time is 7:30 this meeting of the municipal land use Board of the burrow river is being held remotely and recorded via Zoom due to the borrow council chambers unavailability and is a compliance with the provisions of the open public meetings Act and the associated regulations notice of this remote meeting was published in the bourbon record posted on the front doors of B Hall and posted on the Burrow's website the notice included the the dial in log in information necessary for the public participation and access to this meeting remotely a copy of the agenda for the meeting was made available on the borrows website near the posting of the meeting's notice and included in the dial in 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 Star n on your telephone keypad to raise your hand the board will address You by name or by the last four digits of your telephone number you may mute and unmute yourself by pressing the microphone icon on Zoom or dialing star six on your telephone keypad you must state your name and address prior to making a public comment I guess we can go to rol okay thank you Mr Mayor here Mr kaslin is excused tonight miss Boland is excused tonight Mr merman here Mr pepper here Mr Cay you sure but I see him he is here um Mr tamigo yeah cilman glass here thank you Mr gibons here and Mr B is absent also Pres Mr Baron and Zoning officer dep okay I am sorry I am obviously here I was having a little problem getting the audio on that's right thank you Mr okay okay complete yep all right first first agenda item is the meetings the minutes of the uh February 28th meeting um I have three minor uh um Corrections So Lisa if you can uh follow along I'll I'll I'll give them out on on your first page where we have the roll call councilman glass C glass is missing you said it's missing yes oh okay and all you got to do is look on the next page and yeah okay yeah all right um the second and $2,000 you'll be spending in just um the second one ler is over on page five okay under David Arabia the street address is 246 and that's under complet this review and under new business following down the street address is 246 also um next one's page eight okay over on page the the uh First full paragraph starts out Mr merman ask for a motion and it goes on um it's it's the second sentence the second line there that reads lot courage would be would not be exceeded Mr Casa's comments will be incorporated and in the word not it should be Mr kasus comment will not not uh change not to into Mr comments Mr con's comments will be incorporated in into the approval so the not becomes into and I think I have one more page nine the next yes okay oh we're set with that one well wait a second are we talking about the um the meeting minutes for February 28th that's correct okay so I I guess this is boiler plate but maybe we should fix it at the very beginning I'm not done yet Mr councilman I have one more Oh I thought you said the next okay all right um Lis are on page nine the big middle paragraph if we come one two three four lines up from the bottom that sentence starts variances for the sidewalk and two impervious coverage to be allowed the number there is 38 on on the um paper it should be 38.6 okay Lisa y she's she's got it she's got it can you I'm sorry can you hear me yeah I can hear you did you get that list correction 38 yes yes I I did I did okay very good okay sorry for sorry for the errors but I was under the co plus the flu plus the flu last week I was a little under the weather oh you were drinking the wrong scotch or bourbon I guess Council MC glass you had a a correction or a comment yes thank you so if you look at the beginning of the meeting minutes um the paragraph that starts Vice chairman merman um a few sentence later you'll see the following the notice contained the contained the dial in I'm guessing we have that as spil plate let's just fix that it's like in the beginning of every meeting minutes I'm guessing uh yeah but you want to correct that to what I'm not sure what it's supposed to say me neither I've been doing that the same way forever the way it reads now it reads the notice contain the contain the dial in so I'm guessing there's some kind of Ty just change the it to State the notice contained the dial in so get rid of it's just a repeated repeated word okay all right and you could also remove the language about executive orders 103 and 104 um because we are holding the remote meetings due to the unavailability of council chambers okay thank you you're welcome oh any other uh comments Corrections deletions from the board members not hearing any um I'll look for a motion to to accept them as correcting thank you Mr Craig who who second it I did okay so I I had the motion from Mr Gibbons and the second uh Mr Mr cray was absent that meeting so we'll need a different second okay sorry was it councilman glass okay all right um so we have a motion uh in a second can we um have a roll call I guess under this case uh we can do a voice vote okay all all in favor say I please I any opposed any extensions abstain okay okay okay okay so we'll move on to the next item which is the memorializations and we have uh the memorialization for uh Arabia 246 wne block 9 906 L 26 um Marina I think you have something on this yes the I have a revision to the signature line for the resolution instead of U Mr klin who is AB absent that meeting I'm going to change it to have um Mr merman sign the the resolution okay any other uh comments additions or deletions for any the board members okay um not hearing any um can we have a a motion to accept the um minutes as corrected so this is for the memorialization for Arabia corre so moved now we need a second second thank all right I will only was that that was Mr feffer yes a second and I'll only call those eligible to vote um Mr Mayor yes Mr feffer yes councilman glass and Mr gibons yes okay the motion passes um I don't get to votee no because you voted um against the application okay that's right okay got it Marina who Marina Marina who was the second on that motion Mr second thank you all right so let's move on to the next resolution which C Dina 429 Windor road block 809 Lot 25 um go any board members have any comments Corrections deletions on on this uh on this resolution not not hearing any I'll entertain a motion I moved thank you Mr Cay a second thank you Mr G okay so um you want to take a roll call Marina or can we do oral for this one I thought I think Mr Craig was absent for that meeting let me just double check yeah I I didn't I didn't make that all right I for I didn't hear who is the motion who made the motion I thought I heard someone so I seconded so I can certainly make the motion no one made the have Mr Gibbons the motion and the second is we're still looking for a second I'll second okay thank you Mr preer so again I'll only call those eligible Mr Mayor yes okay Mr merman yes Mr fer yes councilman glass councilman glass yes and Mr Gib yes okay the motion passes great the next um resolution we have is the adoption of the 2023 land use for annual report if you remember we voted on at at the last meeting and now we're ready to adapt the uh the resolution so I if anybody's read the resolution and wants to make any um additions deletions um Now's the Time otherwise I will accept the motion to accept it and a second obviously I move to accept the annual report as submitted thank you Mr Craig we have a second please second thank you Mr faer okay um I will um do a roll call vote because there are several m is absent okay Mr merman yes Mr peffer yes Mr PR yes Mr Kino yes and Mr Gibbons yes okay the motion passes mom where is the food so at this point I'm going to flip-flop the schedule here a little for um the convenience of our applicant tonight um so I'm I'm going to take the um the Suzanne lqu uh application ahead of the discussion of the the board's discussion on the proposed ordinance I think this will give us more time and leeway to review that proposal so in that case um let's have the completeness review of the Suzanne laqu 820 bogot road block 205 lot one um which proposes to replace an existing garage with a new a new detached garage um Marina have you reviewed the um submittal um the legal submittals for that please yes I did prior to this meeting meeting I reviewed the proofs submitted by the applicant and found them to be sufficient for the board to hear the application tonight good okay Mr Barons good evening um yes Mr merman as uh as you stated the application is to replace uh an existing detach garage which requires a few variances the applicant submitted a uh a survey of the property as well as plans of the proposed detach garage which show the garage in both plan and elevation View and so it appears there's enough information for the board to proceed this evening okay very good um in that sense can I have a motion to move this application ahead please so moved thank you m oh boy now you're fast okay great um can we have a vote from Mr kigo that was Mr Gibbons and Mr Kingo yes yes yes and then I'll do a roll call vote Mr Mayor yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes Mr Craig yes Mr kigo yes councilman glass yes Mr Gibbons yes okay the motion passes great all right so let's go to new business thing we have the same y we have the same Suzanne laquette um application 820 Boger block 205 L one um this uh this application propo proposal is to replace the existing detach garage with a new detached garage with Associated site improvements the maximum accessory Building height and the maximum accessory building area variance relief is requested um is there anybody representing the applicant in this case Miss L hi I'm Suzanne laquette 820 bogert Road I'm representing myself and will have our architect Wayne guskind on the call okay and um are you going to be testifying yes okay so I guess Marina you're gonna swear swear her or you want to do the AR and her at the same time I'll do this look quite will you both be making providing testimony both of the you both so everyone raise their right hand testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes okay and please state your name spell your last name and provide your address for the record Suzanne s u s a n NE e loquet l o qu T 820 bogert Road River Edge Michael banel t h n l l 820 bogert Road and your architect I see Mr gusin that's correct can you hear me Wayne guskind architect 26 Central Avenue Hillsdale New Jersey and if You' please raise your right hand do you swear from from the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth or nothing but the truth I do and could you provide the board with some background on your licenser lure and qualifications I've been licensed in New Jersey since 1989 it's 35 years I've been in front of numerous boards throughout North Jersey I have a master's degree in architecture from Georgia Tech okay and license is current and in good standing yes it is all right Mr mer okay very good mret you would you like to proceed uh with you and your professionals uh to present your case please um yes thank you I appreciate everyone's time this evening um I understand from the list of um concerns that Mr Costa sent to us should I address them in individually yes well you are one of your professionals can address Miss Casa's report that's fine okay I mean I guess I just want to give a little background on me I've been in Riveredge since 2001 this is my second home in River Edge um in both homes I've made significant improvements that are in keeping with the home and also you know make them more current and up toate and the plan I have to replace place the garage that is currently on my property it's deteriorating um there's actually Ivy growing inside of it so it really does need to be um torn down and I have a corner lot and I'd like to replace it with a two-car garage currently it's a onecar garage I'd like a two-car garage um the current one also has a work room which I use as like my planting room and a little porch that I had used actually um during covid I'm a psychotherapist and I was seeing patients outside I'd like to continue to have that option going forward though I hope we're not in another pandemic um so I'm looking to replace the one car with a twocc car so it's pretty much the same layout except just more more space um the first question that Mr Costa had I'd like for uh Wayne to please address which was um the proposed facade Mr guskin if you could just talk to the proposed fac that you designed for us okay if uh you have availability to look at sheet a-2 on the top left you'll see a a elevation North elevation facing demoris street that shows two8 foot wide by8 foot high or excuse me 6 foot 8 foot uh 8 inch high doors with a Gable that those extend up to uh 15 feet and and that represents one of the uh uh zoning issues uh the height and to the right of that is another sloping roof that extends over to an open porch and a workshop Beyond and the elevation itself the materials and the colors will be complimentary to the house the siding and some brick and uh maybe the owners could talk about the actual colors a little bit more than I can we have an older home um on the corner of bogert and demerest a lot of people know the house because it sits up a little bit on the hill it's got um antique bricks on it and the house dates from the early 1900s and my intention is to have the garage almost look like an outbuilding to that um you know like a garage but like in keeping with it I have an idea of it looking a little bit like red brick probably sh shiplap um and red brick um it will really be in keeping with my house um I think that's all I have from you Wayne at this point um if I'm gonna look at Mr Costa's um questions number two he asked for um request of variances from the bulks is that what he wanted right here hold on one second sorry okay I think Mr Gus kind actually addressed the um Pitch of the roof um going down to number I would like to add that the required the height that we're showing it is necessary or complimentary to the size of the garage and Pitch to have an aesthetic uh pleasing looking garage and the 15 foot height I don't believe is uh not not in keeping with the general area in the neighborhood which I think the owners may be able to testify better because they live in the area but you know they I believe they did some reconnaissance if you want to call it that and uh there are many other examples of garages that have a higher roof is is that correct yes we've walked around the neighborhood you know with my iPhone and there are many garages that probably exceed that height I'm not going to you know tell you I went out and measured them but you know if the board wants I'm happy to provide photographs of other detached garages in my community um in Riveredge that certainly look as big or bigger than that um I don't I don't really I've never had a garage that I could park in so that's really the that was the idea that I wanted to have a garage in the 20 um two years I've lived in this town I've never at 847 Boger and 820 I've never been able to pull a car in so that was really the primary reason um and then of course that it's falling down down um there is concern that the existing patio should should match the proposed site improvements there is a patio currently in my backyard and um I don't real I don't think that the patio will be affected with this um with this change um obviously I'll want to do landscaping and I would make sure that it's in keeping with the appropriate amount of ground cover um I know that or lot lot coverage rather um there was concern that the new driveway was also noted um there is a driveway in very good condition um Mr guskin was going to address for me um it will end up whing out so it's my driveway is on the on demist the front of my house faces bogert the driveway will continue to go straight up there's privacy Hedges there and then it will wi out about 23 to 30 feet after the existing privacy hedge to allow another car to get into the into the garage but it won't affect the patio at all um I know there was was Lot coverage there was concerned about the lot coverage but I did and I think you all have this from um Mr Costa my lot coverage is currently at 15 um1 n% and the proposed new garage will only make it up to 18.22% um currently there's a there's an existing shed on the property that will be taken down it's also in kind of a state of disrepair I've had this house for about 10 years it was there when I bought it um so I'll that will come down as well it's something I use now for like bikes and lawn mowers and things like that um engineer had concerns or comments rather um with sanitary sewer water services and other utilities um at this time there there won't be any running water not at this time but forever there will not be running water in the garage there'll be electricity but there's already electricity in the garage as far as storm water management and drainage plan I would assume that the architect and the builders would make sure that the STM water calculations are submitted and you know that they're creating a an appropriate draining system um in 2018 I did an addition to my kitchen um and I certainly complied with that as well I remember um Mr Costa had made uh made us aware of that made my Builder aware of it I used a local Builder um from Riveredge and um you know so I intend to do the exact same thing and make sure sorry um he also mentions roof leaders from the garage will be tied into this storm water management system um I feel like that would be obvious sort of but I just um so sorry about that that's that sounds like a fujo um and the last concern he mentioned was lighting and Landscaping um my house like I said the house faces bogert the driveway face is demerist there's one other front door on demerest if any of you are familiar with that area um I don't anticipate using anything but residential lighting this is my primary residence I don't intend to be putting any kind of you know lights that would affect or or bother my neighbors um I feel like those are all the concerns I would I would like to add uh if you don't mind uh back to the general comment to which did say testimony shall be provided uh by all the applicants and support of the requested variances and we did talk about the height of the garage but we did not cover the size of the garage and there was you know uh which says 450 for a two-car garage but this is more than a two-car garage this includes a workshop and a patio so it's uh depending on how you interpret it is it 680 Square ft or is it you know for of covered of area that would be actually enclosed or not and while it is over the amount that is set forth in the town but this's a unique situation that's why we're here that if you look at the site plan on sheet a on T1 uh it's really a big site and when you look at the size of the garage it's really not that big in proportion to the rest of the property and I think it it's the right size for the property and would be in keeping with the character of the house and and the area uh and it's set back so you don't really see it no one really you know unless you're really looking for it you wouldn't know it's there uh as as if you're a neighbor uh driving through the area in fact you know it's it's in the same spot as the existing one so it's bigger but it's it's set back all the way into the corner but but far enough away from the property lines that meet the required setbacks I don't really have anything else to add um we'll answer any questions I'm happy to you know answer any questions I'm sorry my dog is is misbehaving so excuse The Barking does your architect um M Mr Good kusine do you um intend to present your plans in any manner or form if you want I can do that I can kind of go through it if you want I I guess I have to share the screen then if you want me to do that okay let me see here how do I do that everybody everybody should everybody everybody should have a copy what Mr Gus kind had drown up I have this I don't know how to do this that well do did everyone get a copy of the architect's plants yes we have the copies if you have additional testimony you can share the the screen you just click the green share screen SE I did but I'm looking at my screen okay and I'm trying to find which one would work I'm looking for this I have the PDF up you know what I'm saying and I'm trying to get it up I don't know how to uh do that you don't see my screen right you see that now yes no no okay let me do share screen again where is that I have the green thing right so I click it yes now do you hold on share okay then I do share I got a basketball game there here we go is that uh now can you see the drawings yes y okay good I don't know I gotta I gotta somehow scroll through these because uh all right there you go I can use my buttons well you uh I guess you have seen these drawings obviously to quickly run through them uh that where here's two pictures of the existing garage that is in disrepair as you can plainly see uh with all the growth and uh disrepair that wants to be replaced here's the existing survey and here's the proposed site diagram which really in the back right here is where we have the Spade driveway uh new uh madm or blacktop and including here is the garage here and here's the supporting zoning data which has the two zoning variances here that are in the report uh going through the drawings let's go through them real fast here's the foundation block foundation and here's the first floor which shows the two-car garage coming in there's the workshop here's the covered patio with a support post here this is a roof plan that has two skylights and there's the skylights inside the space Here's the four elevations I mentioned this one when I did some testimony that's the main look of the garage in the 15 foot height and in the dis in here that's open that area and that door is beyond uh and the some decorative of lighting and uh from the side this faces the house you would have that's the open area and there's some nice Windows here to the workshop and a couple of skylights up on the roof and these two sides that are kind of a little bit unadorned those are the sides facing the property lines that you don't really see there's only a 4 foot area be behind those areas and here's a section to show how the construction would work and the portal frame that's required by code uh new you know New Jersey uniform construction code the international residential code Etc and so forth so that's the the quick uh review of the drawings thank you okay um anything else at this point um I guess I'm just hoping that the board will approve this because all right so before we go to board questions um I I just want to help you along here um Miss laquet um you you mentioned photos that you had taken similar garages you you your application did include several uh um little garage uh pictures front pictures front elevation pictures garages within the area so I just wanted to make that clear thanks um I have a question for Mr K's office um the applicate reviewed the applicate reviewed your your report um do you have any questions comments anything you want to add M Mr merman U Mr Costa's office is not here tonight because the Mr Costa owns property within 200 feet of the application all right so so all right great so neither Jason or Greg are here then okay so then I have to assume and it looks like as I followed it you you covered uh his his comments um so now uh at this point I will uh uh open it up to our board for uh questions or comments and I'll start with Mr Feer thank you um forgive me if I missed this I didn't quite hear um what is the in terms of square footage what is the amount of additional land coverage for this new garage as compared to the old garage I can answer that the old garage was 374 Square ft this one is 750 if you include the covered patio so it is is in effect twice as large I see and with that that 750 would that include the driveway or the driveway is additional to that the driveway is additional to that that be that would be lot coverage not building coverage right right and is the driveway being widened yes to accommodate the two-car garage right now it's a onecar garage so the driveway has to be widened so that two cars can get into the two-car garage right okay I might answer it's not going to be widened at the base there's um it was just redone a few years ago there's Belgium blocks um that line the the beginning of it so it'll continue to go up and then it will wi out it even looked a little bit bigger in Mr gustin's drawing that's our intention is for it to be you know as small as as we can because I like my backyard yeah and and is that the the material that's closest to the garage is that just uh asphalt regular yes okay I that's all I had thank you all right Mr Craig do you have any questions or comments of the applicant yeah I I guess just one really the uh the 15 foot height um there's no pragmatic reason that that's required is that correct you're just doing it from an aesthetic standpoint otherwise it would look like a flat roof um and actually we were able to bring it down to 15 feet um because we if you looked at the angles of the roofs that the roofs that uh Mr guskin made for the little workroom off of it he had it built into that otherwise it would have been higher we were trying to be very conscious of the fact that you know the house is a little bit um on an elevation already but it's really for Aesthetics a flat roof just no there's no right there's no pragmatic need for it to be at 15 feet just an aesthetic concern well there's flat roof yeah flat roof is not desirable but yeah there there's also skylights which want to be put on a certain pitch roof you don't want skylights they have the require IR for skylights which I think is a good idea and so as a result the uh you know you want to have a certain pitch it's 6 on 12 that's a pleasing normal pitch in this area and like Suzanne said we could have made this which we didn't like all the way up and down at that pitch but we kind of went up and down and then had this uh softer angle that goes over the uh uh Workshop as you can see which really uh softens the whole overall uh impact of the garage okay again all right I I think I understand your answer thank you I guess I also thought just to add to Mr Craig you know I have on the house already I have two flat roofs um off the primary bedroom and you know they're kind of not something I want to have again they're really kind of problematic um I've had a lot of water issues with them so I definitely wouldn't want to build a structure with a flat roof at this point in time and it wouldn't it wouldn't look good with my house I have like a beautiful Old Brick House so anyway anything F Mr Cay okay okay no I'm good thank you all right Mr Chenango uh thank you uh why the skylights in the garage just to make it nicer inside I don't know well the the other reason the is that we there's no Reon we're not going to try to put anything in there other than our cars right the skylights are just for natural light instead of always having to have um you know uh LED shop lights or garage lights on that's it okay if you got rid of the skylights with the roof pit be lowered no it really it there's no reason to really lower it um I mean the the inside again it's aesthetic on the outside but we don't want to have again storage or anything else above that I mean it's the aesthetic part of the outside is the reason of the the height the the skylights is just something we'd like to add yeah Wayne had built the structure at 15 feet like like I said earlier it was taller and then we made a little bit softer like he described and then when we saw it we said oh it would be nice to have skylights in there they were not the primary reason the height was the primary reason so that it would look pretty driving up okay I think Mr Gus kind uh testified that the skylights need a particular pitch and that was part of the reason the roof was that high and what I'm asking was the other way around if you got well okay if you got rid of the skylights could you lower the roof and still have you know some semblance of the type of pit you're looking for but make it lower that's my question of course anything can be done of yes technically you are of course and what am I going to say it can't be lowered I think the client uh my client uh would like to it's think it's 15 feet is a about where it need the height and what the reason for the 11 feed are because maybe these reasons are Antiquated and we have to look at this again so um I will uh say no further questions for now but certainly I want to hear from the professionals at some point thanks very good okay um Council M Glass I don't really have any comments Mr merman I just want to share with the applicants just a personal thing it's not um have direct bearing on the applicate the variances um and I see this all over Riveredge and just something I want to share with you guys personally if you have a big car like an SUV and you have an eight foot wide garage door it's really going to be difficult that's why you see all over River Edge see these big houses tiny little garage doors all the cars are in the driveway just my two cents wanted to share with that with you guys he you said your primary purpose is going to be to put your car in the garage I'm just personally concerned for you that if you have an 8 foot wide garage door and an SUV it's going to be difficult appreciate thank you I think there's a lot of potential solutions for that too yeah I mean yeah a one car you know a one door again it was whatever that's the best that's the best yeah again aesthetically we want to make it look nice as people walk by if they're looking up the driveway and I felt like it would look too industrial with one well a recent applicant had this an is a similar issue and they made the change and they have they they did something really nice aesthetically there's all kinds of different products that are available so I'm sure your architect is aware though maybe he can run through that with you again it's just a suggestion thank you you're welcome Mr giens um yeah just one kind of going off with uh Mr kigo about the the height and I'm wondering I'm wondering if Mr Baron maybe be able to answer this but I'm wondering if the reason for having a lower height requirement would to be to keep it from being a two twostory structure um you know and having it turning it into a a living space um so I don't know Mr Baron is that something that you're aware of is that is that why we would have that um just kind of lead into my next question slash comment sure I mean it's part of it I think it's you know um designed to be somewhat self-limiting in in terms of what these uh detached accessory structures can be used for and I think frankly where the dimensions come from probably reflects what exists in town so you see a lot of these detached garage that were you know were original to the houses on particularly the older areas of town so I think it's true that obviously uh the lower the height of the structure the less likelihood that there's you know a loft or second floor space I've actually been in some detached garages that have that um in River Edge um and and you know that might even be taller than that but um so I don't know if it's the exact reason but but again um you know I think the ordinance contemplates that these types of structures would be used for traditional amenities like garages sheds Etc um you know with those limit ations okay I don't necessarily have an issue with the 15 feet um but I guess my comment then I guess for either you or Miss steinley um can we and I understand this L quet why you're doing this and your purpose for it but you're not going to own this house forever so I'm wondering if it can be stipulated in our resolution that it cannot be used for a living space you know turning that area into a loft uh you know can we can we put something like that in into a resolution if they're amenable to it um you know because again I don't necessarily have an issue with the 15 ft seems like it makes sense but again at some point you're selling this house do the next people try to turn that into a loft I think you I think you bring up a very good point and I think that was the other reason we were like oh let's just put in skylights so there's like no worry about that and I would be happy to put that in and that whenever my house be sold that it could never be used as a place there 's not going to be any heat in it anyway but I'm happy do that the next people put in water you know the% have to look at down the road in 20 304 you know whatever it is um so miss steinley Mr baren is that something that we can put into a resolution if I may I would just suggest leaving the language at um the applicant agrees to not install living space um without obtaining prior approval from the buau um just in case things change down in the future um I think that would be an appropriate um compromise okay um that was all my comments thank you okay um m m Skyy um before I moved down a little more I didn't um catch the full attendance is um colum bu uh here tonight no he is not no okay that's what I thought I just wanted double check um and before I give my comments I'll um I'll I'll call on the mayor yes I'm good no issue no issue wonderful all right um well then we're down to me um my my well first of all I think I think the presentation of the structure and the use is U very functional and and with a lot of thought going into it um I look at it very favorably um personally and but I do want to clarify a few items um W would the new um unit um have any uh public water in it no no no what about any cooking provisions no no okay so is it safe to say that right now it's set up so that there would not any way be used or easily converted to a dwelling unit you are correct okay because I'm personally more concerned with that nice building that you're proposing uh eventually becoming a uh or being converted into a dwelling unit down the road perhaps when you no longer have ownership of the house um so what would happen in that case is I think in our or we should consider in our motion that the applicant understands that the borrow of riverge our code enforcement official um would be making periodic appearances maybe annual or something similar um to make sure that that has that happened that's fine that's okay okay excuse me that's already excluded by code for an accessory building well yes that's true but there are some um towns um where um auil I'm just saying that that use is excluded by the code all right I understand that what I'm saying is we need a police action like if I can put it that way because there are some towns um in in Bergen County particularly towards the east where these type of structures and particularly basements are at some point converted to another uh dwelling unit okay so I'm just looking forward um I think that the code enforcement official um annually or whatever could could take care of that and Ensure the protection of the uh of the borrow that that was that's where I'm coming from um okay um did I miss anybody if that being the case um are there any further comments from any board members Mr Barons do you have any further comments before we go public uh I I'll just reiterate I guess a few observations uh for the board's recollection um the applicant seeking two variances for the height again 12 ft permitted they're at 15 ft the maximum uh area for a detached accessory structure is 450 Square fet they're at 750 square F feet my understanding is that the structure will comply with the minimum accessory structure side and rear yard setbacks of four feet so it'll be in a conforming location um I've heard that um the only utility that will be installed in the in the structure will be electricity is that accurate I'll ask the applicant is that it only Elric okay yes that's correct be with me I'm just going down my list here um I believe the driveway the maximum driveway width is within the maximum conforming width of 22 feet might even be slightly less as shown on the plan but um at least as far as a condition that it not exceed 22 ft and also that the driveway be located at least 2 feet from the side Lot line um as required um and then just uh you know sometimes for the board we break down some of these Dimensions so again the the maximum the overall footprint is 750 square feet um 575 square feet of which is dedicated to the two-car garage so the garage portion is 23 by 25 um which for a two-car garage is is not um out of line I would say um but then it you know obviously adds the the workshop which is 15 by7 or 105 Square ft and there's the covered patio area which is has a roof but is otherwise unenclosed which is 70 square feet um I mean the applicant I guess just one question for the applicant that might help the board too is um you know you're knocking down the existing structure the overall objective is to have a space to park two cars or Vehicles you know internally um did you explore maybe doing an catch garage and and decided that this was a better alternative could you help us maybe AR physically from my house adding an attached garage with I think I might have spoken to your architect about this basically if you're trying to uh achieve two uh garage spaces the one alternative is the one you're proposing the other would be attaching it to the house um and I think when I spoke with him he had some justification for that and I'm just wondering if if somebody can again help us understand why this is the best or the better uh alternative I would I would say that this you don't the house uh if you put the attached garage uh to the right side of the house there's a uh a one-story area that's to the to the right side of the house that it would be very difficult and it would be up against the property line and it wouldn't fit and to the other side to the north demoris place it would be in the side setback which is a front setback and uh and access to would be too close to the corner this is taking and using the existing driveway that's there which is all the way in the back and away from the corner and you know I think is the least impactful design that we could come up with and it's tucked in the same location more or less and uh that's why we did what we did all right thank you it's a Mr Barons it's a brick Colonial um like I said from the early 1900s and aesthetically from the street it would look it would really look ugly on bogur or demerest to attach it I have a sun room on one side and the other side is a is a kitchen Edition um that that so it just it wouldn't work this is the least visible okay so and it's where it is now right I appreciate the explanation um my I guess just my final comment is if the board is generally you know uh okay with the application I I would my personal opinion is that a pitch roof would be better than a shed roof on something like this but that's just my my two sets so thank you that's it for me okay very good um at this point I guess we can move to uh open to the public uh for public comments um we need a motion in a sec second to do do that make a motion to open to the public second thank you m thank you um okay all in favor I I opposed okay so we'll open it to the public miss miss at that point at this point we'll have Miss steinley uh read the instructions for the public and um we'll go from there okay thank you so now this meeting is open to the public for any comments or questions on the application for a20 bogert road if you have any comments or questions please raise your hand on Zoom you can dial you can press the raise hand button or dial Star n on your telephone keypad okay there are members of the public present but and we have someone oh all right and please just state your name and address for the okay Miss Finley let me interrupt a second um what I propose to do here tonight is we'll take all the public uh comments and questions at once and we will uh bundle them together and we will um answer and address them all at one time please continue all right Mr uh or Sam Caputo if you please state your name and address sure hi everyone thank you so much for your time this evening really appreciate the opportunity to speak here um my name is Sam Capo I live at 816 bogert Road I've been a resident of Bergen County for 39 years I've lived in this home for 10 years I live in a Dutch Colonial that was built in 1917 uh as far as I understand uh all of the structures on this property have are original and uh as um um what I'm uh about to uh share with you are some concerns I have about the size height and placement of uh what's being requested here uh I haven't measured garages in my immediate area uh but um I what I do know is that my garage is lower than what is being requested um one of the things I'd like to bring up is I'm concerned about storm drainage um a lack of uh of uh of uh of setback that I've seen from uh other other in other uh in my my experience and is creating a water runoff onto my property uh the way my garage is right now is approximately 4 feet uh from uh two of my neighbors uh so if you look at a a satellite view of my property my property is in the upper leftand corner and adjacent to my left is uh the property that's being that's requesting a zoning uh variance and behind me is another property that has a garage also about 4 feet away so in essence you have uh three properties all within four feet of each other my garage currently is lower than both of the other too probably when the house was built in 1917 it was level but over time or for whatever reason these properties are now elevated so I'm very concerned about storm water running onto my property uh in in addition to that there is a large tree stump that is currently between my property and the garage that is uh um requesting to be torn down and I have a question will that tree stump be removed and will the new garage be at the same grade as my current garage all right so provide all your comments and questions now and we'll address them all together okay if I can just keep going um so I I understand that this is going to be 4 feet away from the property um what I'm concerned about is the view of a 30 foot wide by 15 High garage four feet away from my property just feet away from my living room and it's going to lessen my property value I'm also uh concerned about Landscaping I haven't really heard much about landscaping and if there's a 4 foot uh setback against a 30 foot walled garage I don't I currently have a 8 foot high hedge that hides the view of my neighbor's garage and if the garage is built most likely it's going to damage the root system U Maybe not immediately but probably eventually and will the if uh will the my hedge be replaced if damaged um that's that's basically what I'd like to just share with uh uh this board and um I appreciate the your review and uh compliance with the zoning requirements thank you all right anyone else the public interested in making a comment please raise your hand now okay one more person all right if you please state your name and address for the record U my name is Marilyn Nagel and my address is 827 Summit Avenue I am kitty corner to Suzanne's property um so my garage is um one of the three garages that we're talking about right now suzan's Mr Caputo is behind me and I am kitty corner to Suzanne and I my comment is I think it's wonderful that she's going to improve her property because this garage uh her garage is crumbling and falling down and there are bricks everywhere and it is a bit of an eyore so that she's willing to put money into improving her property is going to be an asset to our neighborhood here um so that's all I wanted to say that I I think it's wonderful that she wants to do this thank you and we don't do not have anyone else in the public um so we can close oh no we um oh there we go I think we're done so there was only the two of them just those two just those two okay so we're gonna let the applicant address the comments that we received all at once between um the applicant themselves and his architect may I ask that Wayne be allowed to do the screen sharing again I'd like to see the picture that you put up Wayne if you would how did I do that again there is this picture here or are you talking that yeah well I mean I think this definitely um yeah enlarge it if you can please yeah and I guess because I have all of you in like a weird spot I just have to it's his yeah there you go point and move that over for the uh existing the the proposed survey Please Mr chairman point of order that there you go that's the best I can do point of order Mr merman I'm here point of order yes sir I believe uh you need to close to the public before you have an answer yeah yes I yeah you're correct you're correct Mr Mayor okay very good so let's let's be before we do that let's let's close it to the public do we make a motion in a second I'll make that motion thank you correct okay all in favor of closing to the public oos any extensions fine okay now um please continue with uh your response uh to the two the two public comments that we had hey I'm just looking at the um the garage and how currently to Mr Caputo's frame garage you can see it etched right on the property line um wait if you could just sort of show that on the existing space okay hold on I this that right there that's is that's the existing garage of the computos and if you can see my um and then go to the right um it is only extending I don't I can't read the amount of feet but there is um no there's the Hedge that's between the two properties he's talking about are actually my hedges um and if they're damaged of course I'm going to replace them um but there's complete privacy um between the two homes there is a large tree that had been um I think like a sapling that just grew out of control when my husband and I when my late husband and I bought the house 10 years ago that um at the Caputo's request we removed D um there will definitely that that uh stump will be removed that's not even a question um as far as um the capito receiving any storm yes Mike Mike Cay I think you're you're still unmuted what's up Mr cay was still unmuted we're hearing a lot of background I didn't I wanted to be able to hear you okay um the the the the uh stump was not able to be ground when it was taken down because of the weird location of the tree but it will obviously be taken out during um the construction of the new garage um as far as being four feet he mentioned being four feet from two of the neighbors um the way that I read the land survey my existing garage actually conforms to the 4 feet and my neighbor Mr Capo's does not conform to the existing 4 feet nor does his Madam driveway um and it's never been an issue it's just been the way it was but his McAdam goes all the way up um and if you look at the dotted lines of the survey um they're they're actually um not the required feat um from my property line and I they're exactly right on and in fact in some ways it meanders over to my property line um as far as Landscaping concerns um I I believe he probably didn't hear in the beginning but obviously when this construction is done I love my backyard I have dogs the Landscaping will be improved in fact um in 2020 between the caputos and my house I replaced um all the existing shrubs and put in some beautiful um some beautiful Arbor vites um so yes I will be Landscaping at the close of this project um as far as bringing the garage down to his level um I I don't really know I can't really speak to how I would do that um I know that the nagles property because of the way these three garages converge I have been back in that area there's a lot of poison ivy back there um I don't know that I could lower mine um it doesn't really I don't know I'm not obviously in the construction business but I don't know how I would lower the grade of my property there it doesn't really make sense but I would imagine there would have to be a concrete foundation for this project to begin and and there would be the removal of the stump and I mean wouldn't there be like a little bit of a wall or something with the concrete we would be willing I know that uh um Sam has actually Mr Caputo Mr Caputo has um cut down where it is now the the the land just so it's about 16 inches right and he shaves that because there is natural runoff into his garage um being well within that four feet but we would be willing to do some kind of a little retaining wall or something to make sure that that doesn't happen anymore um and he has you know that the that issue we could help him solve like to work with the burough engineer uh regarding any storm water management or runoff issues that that arise yes we did discuss that earlier thank you for we bringing that up um and as far as you know his living room being able to be visible from it his his home um and again I I'm I'm sort of like spitballing for feet but um Wayne how much does uh I can't really see and I would like to make my com oh I can I can make my computer bigger his house has many feet from there I let me I'd have to look hold on can just say the shed is in the they're looking at an old shed that's on my um if you look at the um land survey there's an old frame shed that's going to be taken down I mean that's pretty much an isore too I mean I had I had Vermin in the garage very recently I mean they only this is only going to improve as far as it bringing down his property value I think it would do just the opposite I think as my neighbor Miss Nagel said I think it will actually improve the property values in this more historic area of of River Edge um I think I addressed all of his concerns okay as yeah would would the architect care add anything else perhaps no I I think uh wait am I uh do I have to click or no I think Suzanne covered it all very well and uh I agree with her that this would be an improvement to the neighborhood uh I think anyone uh here in this meeting can see that it's pretty obvious compared to what's there now okay very good um anything further in rebuttal no okay let me just add for the record since Mr caser is not here or a member of his office his report and this is for Mr Caputo uh his report um states that there will be a storm management and drainage plan and there will be calculations submitted and that the roof leaders from the garage will be Ted Into the Storm Water Systems I just wanted to make that clear for the record okay um are there any additional questions or comments from the board members okay not hearing any um Mr Baron do you want to say anything before I uh ask for a motion uh I no no Mr chair okay very good thank you um at this point um I think we're ready for a a motion uh regarding this application I'll ask for a volunteer I'll volunteer um I would make a motion to approve uh block 205 lot one for the two variances for the um total garage size and the garage height um with the one stipulation that they agree that it would not be used I'm not sure the wording that we should use but not be used for um habitation not sure the right word to use there miss steinling um but as discussed before I believe the language was that will the garage space would not be converted to a dwelling unit without um prior burrow or board approval perfect thank you and the applicant for the also agreed to comply with the recommendations in the burrow Engineers report yes and um there was a um two additional comments um that the code official um could inspect the garage periodically for dwelling units um and that the maximum driveway width would not exceed the burrow code requirements and would of 22 ft and then that the driveway would remain at at least 2 feet from the side L line Y I'd accept those as our motion is there a second to the motion has just made all right we need a second fellas second thank you all right um I guess we can go to a vote um Miss steinley um you want to take the vote please all right Mr Mayor yes Mr merman yes Mr peffer yes Mr Craig yes Mr Keno yes councilman glass yeah I just want to share with everyone SAR uh this is from our our burrow Cod no portion of an accessory building or structure shall be used for living quarters temporary or permanent and there are multiple other exclusions in our code regarding the use of accessory structures I just want to make everyone on the board aware of that but my uh reply is yes thank you thank you and Mr GI yes okay the motion passes wonderful thank you wow thank you so much I really appreciate it thank you very much thank you folks yes good luck your new good luck in your new um garage or your new shop back there and thank you thank you that's it okay thank you so much have a good night happy holidays to all all right byee thank you again okay okay board members we'll now move uh we'll now move to the uh proposed ordinance uh discussion um and let me dig out my paperwork okay you you just want to make sure who's here miss styley you want to just take a roll call so we know at some point later um yes we still have everyone who was previously present Mr cray Mr Gibbons councilman glass Mr kigo Mr feffer Mr Mayor and we also have Tom Barons and Steve dekin our Z okay great so I'll I'll kick this off um and I guess um Mr Baron you might wind up being the champion of this at the moment um Chris castlin sent out a uh a memo recently um regarding this um I don't know who all quite received it it looks like it was just between uh couple of the uh the chairman and the vice chairman M and the mayor um but just to share the thoughts that he gave um Chris was asking for a G I'll kind of quote him uh could you give us some background as to the Genesis of this amendment and he uh also um had some suggestions that might be uh other things that might um go go into uh go into the uh consideration overall and one of those being um we revise or have a suggestion to revise the uh board standing committees and uh they were set forth into new construction signs and ordinance uh which would we called Legal um signs I don't think are a part of what is been proposed in the markup of the of the ordinance and I'll leave it at that and I'll guess Mr Baron you're the one to go begin going forward at this point uh sure good evening um yeah this this was a group effort so I I don't want to take uh well really any of the credit but but I'll go through the ORD um it anybody as the board may recall there have been a number of issues that were discussed over the past few years um generally with applicants coming and requesting uh varage relief uh to the board um I I think what might be best is if I just attempt to share it I'm trying to find the latest iteration of it so bear with me I think it's it was emailed to all of us um let's see I think the latest iteration is the one that is Mr dein's second version correct I believe that to be the case as well was it was it the email of March 22nd it may very well be yes the latest one that I have just bear with me one moment yeah that's what I have as well that came from Mr alter right maybe that's why I'm missing it I sent the version out on the 25th okay well just give me 30 seconds and I'll get there yeah received on the 25th correct uh yes okay so I will um attempt to share this and so there are two documents one are the proposed zoning narrative changes and the other is the re uh accompanying revisions to the Burrow's bulk schedule of requirements okay finally got it so I'm going to share it all right okay I think everybody hopefully can see the screen now so um within the ordinance and again we're talking about amending both chapter 416 zoning as well as chapter uh 350 site plan um they whereas Clauses explaining you know uh how we got to this point and why we're trying to amend some of these things and I think I could further elaborate once we get to those sections um the first uh begins with um some definitions So currently the burrow has uh definitions in term and requirements for improve loot coverage and lock coverage um the suggestion here is to uh sort of rename them and instead of lot call it building coverage which can be confusing to applicants sometimes um as well as has um create a new term called lock coverage or or replace rather lock coverage by impervious surfaces and just shorten it to lock coverage and then we would have the improved lock coverage I I think we do have to take a look to see if we need all three and it may be as simple as just keeping building coverage and lock coverage um we'll have to cross reference the ordinance because in the uh in the bulk schedule I think we're now only regulating building coverage and lock coverage so I'm not sure improved lock coverage is is needed uh anymore but in any event we did clarify that coverage Beyond building coverage now includes things specifically like walkways uh decks patios the board determined that swimming pools both INR and above ground should also count toward lock coverage which you know is frankly a policy decision uh as well as sport courts and other man-made improvements so um you know there's a realm of possibilities and new things coming out every year so this seems to better capture what the typical things we see in River Edge are but also leaves a little room to um you know for anything else that might arise um and again I think we just have to look at those three and see if maybe we only need two and and also just cross reference the the Ordinance one more time we also have this new definition of yard amenities and the one issue um that the board has had for the last couple of years are uh individuals and develop velers basically maxing out their lock coverage or improved lock coverage with the house and the driveway and they leave no more coverage left for typical things like patios sheds uh decks Etc in the rear yard that that you would come to expect in River Edge so the idea is to one Define those things and also to create a reserve uh 5% um in each uh residential Zone essentially that there'd be some dedicated space for these things so that there'd be guaranteed area to include these things and that if an applicant were to come to the board with a new home you would say well you've got that amount what's your justification for you know exceeding that 5% Grant bear with me while I scroll through and so so the definitions would be changed in both chapters 416 and 350 for consistency we have this provision um about Corner Lots which just helps to to re uh State what it is or or help clarify where the the words or more are included so I'll read it a corner lot shall have two or more front yards facing upon Street frontages which means that a corner lock could have three frontages which happens in some cases um and in this case it it maintains the it says the frontage exposure with the street address dictates the rest of the yard so for instance if you you have a corner lot both frontages would be front yards the yard opposite the address or or typically the front door would be the rear yard and the remaining yard would be a side yard I've questioned um whether or not there should only be front yards and sidey yards as we see in some ordinances which would actually um help a lot of the corner Lots in town particularly the older areas of town because I think we had an application recently on might have been the corner of Kensington and bogert where just these houses were developed with non-conforming rear yard setbacks so anytime they want to do any sort of uh addition they have to request variant relief um because the uh the minimum rear yard requirement is 25 feet versus the minimum sidey yard requirement of 7.5 Feet Again some towns do it this way some towns do it where they have two front yards and two side yards I my opinion from what I've seen it it may be a a chance to help some of those Corner Lots uh which there are quite a few that that have existing non-conforming conditions and almost in all instances require variance relief to do any sort of addition so just a thought um and Mr chairman do you want me to Ramble On or do you want to stop at each no um this is very important give us all the info that you have so we can work with it yep all right uh we'll do okay so then we go to section six which is this provision of um relaxing the the front porch encroachment into front yards currently as you may recall we allow for an encroachment of up to 5 feet not to exceed 35 square feet and again that refers to a front porch or a front Portico um as it currently reads we're talking about increasing that to a six foot encroachment not to exceed 42 square feet um I I think there was an alternative scenario where the board discussed you know wanting to encourage front porches so they were okay with the six- foot encroachment and may or may not have wanted a limitation with regard to square footage meaning that you could you could keep it at let's say 42 square feet or do something like let it you know be the length of the house or some you know subject to meeting all lot and building coverage requirements again a policy decision in any event I I would concede that the 35 square feet is is small by modern standards to accommodate a modern from portra Portico so at at a minimum I think the 6 feet 42 square feet is is uh headed in the right direction and again it's a question of do we want to allow the encroachment for a full-blown front porch you know not to exceed six feet into the front yard not to exceed one story in height would be could be one alternative we then go to section seven which is the maximum lot coverage uh portion of the code and here it it introduces that new concept of requiring that 5% of the improved lot coverage in each residential zoning District shall be reserved for re for yard amenities as defined in this chapter again I I think we just have to look at you know improve lot versus lot and just make sure that all uh works well together um and and I do think that we're talking about yard amenity yard amenities excuse me particularly in the rear or the side yard and whether or not that requires uh further clarification um section I if I could just jump in real quick I had we had discussed labeling the rear laboring labeling the yard amenities as exclusive to the rear yard but I proposed to just in just label it as a year a yard amenity um just for the possibility that yard amenities could so the possibility that yard amenities could apply to Corner lots that might not have a rear yard per se and might that's why I wanted to keep the language more General yeah no no and and um that makes sense that that did occur to me too and especially if if we get into a scenario where we eliminate rear yards and you only have side yards so that that absolutely makes sense i' I guess my thought just to make clear that there you know it's not intended for the front yard and that it's necessarily for those accessory features which which the definition does talk about um you know ex with again referring to the definition of yard amenities talks about accessory buildings or structures and lists what those are and there's other regulations that say well that of course those things have to be in the rear or the side yard so if you follow that logic that that uh applies I'm sorry for skimming all over the place I didn't real I forgot that everyone was uh looking at my screen um uh section eight uh the burrow code currently has no regulation specifically for air conditioning units um or generators and so we typically default to the uh accessory structure requirements which uh as you may recall have minimum four foot side and rear yard setback requirements so I think it's important that we start you know regulating those just so people understand that you know they're not allowed in the front yard or they shouldn't be in my opinion um and and again that they have appropriate setbacks in some towns they'll say that generators need to be a bit further from the lot line or that they can only be in the rear yard for instance not the sidey yard um and then we've added uh I guess to the term accessory building or structure uh pools and Spore cords now I I I guess Marina the term seasonal would that mean temporary oh this this is not intended to include I excuse me I apologize got it uh okay so it's in one space the the AC's are intended to not include and they're included so I think we just have to clarify that but I think we know the answer to that meaning A and A and B includes both includes five uh air conditioning units and and what follows in both so just to we should clarify that yeah there's one question I have on number five where it says in generators for residential building for non-residential buildings I'm not sure what that means uh oh I see sorry go ahead um so when I was putting it together I was trying to do have multiple options for the board to pick but uh I think that's just a typo so maybe I me I think I might have meant to put um just for non-residential buildings as B5 instead of four Residential Building for non-residential buildings so a A5 is for residential buildings and then B5 would be for non- residential buildings got it okay okay all right um I I guess my my comment would just be while we're on that just to make sure that there's some setback Provisions um you know in in the in the case of both residential and non-residential that they have some sort of requirement which it looks like we may end up getting to so um relative to tonight um this uh provision C1 talks about expanding the maximum garage height to 15 feet and again we saw a case tonight where that was uh you where that came up um I have seen 15 feet in other towns um you know primarily to encourage the the roof pitch that was discussed um we would still in this case maintain the maximum 400 50 squ ft which for for a two-car garage is on on the low end you really want probably more of like a 22x 22 um which may be about 450 let's see what that yeah even that's a little more than four 450 so in any event the garages it's something for the board to consider uh allowing them a maximum 15 uh feet height um I I think most single family properties in Riveredge probably could not accommodate a detached two-car garage at you know the property we looked at tonight was over 12,000 square feet so it was a bit of an anomaly in that case uh we have a provision that requires um no accessory buildings be located closer than five feet to a single family dwelling and that more or less sums it up um I will go to now to the um bear with me while I stop sharing to that other document which I'll spend maybe just another two minutes on while it opens bear with me okay okay and again this is the the bulk chart that's an attachment in the code and the uh suggestion again is to convert the the the terminology of of lot coverage to building coverage for the sake of clarity and also strike out improv lot coverage and call it lock coverage um which I think would then do away with the term of improved lock coverage but we again we could look at that and then there's a separate uh column attributed to this new concept of yard amenities which would allow a maximum of 5% I think one thing we have to clarify is whether or not the 5% would be in addition to the 35% or if it's incl included in the 35% I know at one time as a board we did talk about maybe increasing the maximum improved lot coverage um for non-conforming Lots meaning smaller lots that were let's say 5,000 6,000 or even conforming Lots at 7500 square feet so those were things we discussed I don't think we ever came to a definitive answer but um with that I will stop sharing um and I guess Marina or uh Steve do you guys have anything to add at this point um no I think he covered everything that I saw Tom I think uh but when you brought up about the um Corner lots that uh had um you know no backyard um maybe a thought would be to um divide that property into quadrants and it would be the um back quadrant that doesn't uh you know doesn't touch a street you can consider that a uh rear yard uh to let them use that that section uh as a you know accessory structures and and so forth okay yeah I've seen that done in other places so it's something for the board to consider um yep and I I would tend to agree those are most of my uh comments and recommendations were included in the draft um I'd be happy to meet with a subcommittee to go over more detail in more detail just to make sure that um everything is explained in a way that's easy to understand because sometimes that can and cause confusion for applicants and then also the zoning official when we're trying interpret the code if it doesn't make sense um just to an everyday rivered resident then it's not going to we're going to run into problems as a board um so I'd be happy to to do that just to go over everything with the fine tooth comb so then when we present it to the council there aren't going to be any questions I do have uh one or two other comments um as far as the um accessory buildings uh some of the definitions were uh pergas Pavilions roofed porches uh the roof porches would be part of the structure uh I don't uh I wouldn't consider that an accessory structure uh that would be part of the U you of the building itself and it would be calculated in the building coverage uh for for that structure just a thought um and the other thing is with your um your uh air conditioners and units like that I think everybody was under the same um the feeling that you don't want it in the front yard uh there's going to be cases where uh air conditioning units already exist um and if maybe you want to put in uh the fact that you know if they're going to be there and they're going to be replaced you don't want them to Reed design the air conditioning system just to get it out of the front yard um suggest that it would be screened from view from the uh from the stre um so it gives you a better um you know um view of the of the property from from the roadway and the generators um I've seen uh in the past that the generators uh we get complaints about the generator going on they have like a test mode uh and the sound of the generators um so maybe you want to think about um having a um a distance from the property line uh but also a um maximum distance from the structure so it keeps it close to the uh to the structure and not uh say in your backyard um you know where it would affect neighbors and might not affect you at all um so I think maybe you want to give thought about you know those two dimensions and uh right now other than that I think that's everything else has been addressed Mr Baron is that it before we take comments from the board yeah I think that that generally summarizes it um again there may be you know a policy question or two but uh I think this and again we we sort of broke this up as to you know what were discussed as priorities there still are some other changes I think we need to look at but we had you know really predominantly this coverage issue with the single family homes the max build outs and trying to you know carve out this 5% uh you know amenity requirement um and also I I think some of the other loow hanging fruit which which we could tackle now in Li of you know a more extensive review that I think we can still do in the near future um now that you mentioned that Tom I do have another um uh question uh with that percentage for the uh amenities um at what point do you decide to put that into effect uh the size of the structure the size of the addition that they're doing um is it any property uh that wants to do something do you have to put that aside now um so I think maybe you want to think about like a certain square footage uh that you're adding onto the structure you know I understand the the mayor has explained it you know well that it was the um you know the people coming in and uh renovating the house and selling it and they want to do as much square footage as possible uh to get the value out of that that um but you know I think maybe think about the um the residents that want to put additions on you know are you you know kind of restricting them uh with that uh with that requirement also yeah I think there's a couple ways to arrive at we we'll call a reserve designation I I think there certainly will be instances where it triggers variances um and and again it's a question of is you know is it in included in what we currently allow or is it on top of what we allow meaning if we allow 35% are we really talking about 40% I'm not suggesting we are just that that's a decision I think the Board needs to to make but um yeah I hear what you're saying right so how do you how do you capture that I mean there's you can maybe indicate that no more than x% can be covered by the house and driveway for instance and then you there's a couple ways to arrive at the same thing but the approach this ordinance used is is um this maximum 5% and I think a little further clarification is warranted um I don't think we're going to cover every situation and and there will still be variances um but this I think or at least the idea you know puts one you know perspective developers on notice um and also you know makes people think through their you know development plans yeah I was is taking it as uh the 5% was reserved from that 35% so it would actually be 30% you know and then that reserve of 5% would be for amenities which yeah go ahead no no I'm sorry I cut you off go ahead you know I I I think in some uh situations that might be uh you know minimal um but I think that U you know if you go up to 40 or something like that then you're creating a situation again uh with h with variances coming coming forward yeah I mean at the end of the day applicants can still request variances this just helps you know the knockdowns max out situation um I think the one of the points I made before was that I think the the zoning schedule needs to just clarify that it's included in the maximum and not in addition to or or somewhere that we just clarify that so Beyond any you know doubt that that's what it's intended to mean yeah I I I agree um I don't know whether the contractors or builders that are flipping houses uh what their price point is and is that going to affect them and then you're going to start reducing uh some of the uh Renovations in town uh which could uh I mean they're um they're nice tax U you know incentives with with u you know the uh larger homes you know you got U but uh I I'm I'm not sure I don't know what their price point would be it it's a question we we've talked about a number of things including F which is not included here that's a bigger you know we we've talked about it but um I there there's trade-offs I I I I agree so I think it's we do have to be cognizant of the unintended consequences we certainly we C well we don't want to discourage Improvement of the housing stock so the it's it's a balancing act so it's how do we arrive at or or discourage those types of situations you know where they're right up to the maximum amount and then you know any any reasonable person that wants a patio necessarily has to go over I mean that that's sort of the case I I think we're trying to deal with well is there some sort of trigger like an ADA trigger if it's a certain percentage of value or a certain percentage of construction cost that triggers it um I I mean it's not written that way I think that could get complicated um it there's all different there's different situations you know when you come up to a coverage you could have you could have a house or property that's fully developed and they're not building a new house and they simply want a larger patio and that gets them to a higher coverage you have other situations where somebody scrapes the land they have a you know an undeveloped 7500 SQ foot lot they build the biggest home they can in accordance with the building coverage they have a double wide driveway and now they're at the the the ceiling of 35% and they sell the home the homeowner comes in and thinks I'm going to build a pool I'm going to build a patio and then they come to you requesting relief so there there are different scenarios um and and again the the opportunity to request relief is remains available Mr are there any are there any other Municipal I'm sorry Mr Mayor you had to raas yeah Mr chairman if I may yese um I've really been the one pushing for this um and I just want to reiterate a couple of things first I absolutely think there are other things we need to consider but it has been my experience over the last um six years as mayor that if we try to do everything an Omnibus Bill so to speak then we don't get anything done so yes I I think all of these and I don't think the council I personally don't think Council would mind um uh doing this ordinance more than once um I I I think I think the need to deal with flooding as an issue is is is right now crucial I can't H tell you how much of my time is spent as mayor going to people's homes who are living adjacent to a house that just got renovated and now there's flooding on their property especially in the southide of town and I can also say to you we just spent $2 million more than $2 million to do um storm drain Improvement because of flooding on Vorhees on Kensington and the backup that led all the way to Memorial Park so um so I think that I I would like this body to consider these changes and send it to the council and then if this body would like to consider more changes this body can and should do that so I'm asking for us uh not to get too tied up in the weeds I mean there are things we need to deal with and there's been excellent suggestions I personally feel Tom you mentioned the front yard and the side yards and two front yards I personally feel I don't know how the council uh the board feels that there should really just be one front yard even if you live on a corner because then it's a side yard then it triggers a variance and I think that people should be able to put amenities on on on a sidey yard I know it's a corner lot but it becomes very difficult and so Tom I thought you had suggested some way to address the idea of two front yards and and the restrictions that then occur especially in houses that are built in the kind of like far left corner where they have a front yard really no backyard and a side yard and those have come and so you know to designate that the address is the front yard and that the side yard can that all all that the backyard and all the sidey yards are together however you guys I thought that was a good suggestion you made if I understood it correctly I also don't have a problem not uh Li uh with a with saying the porch can be I I don't think we should say 42 feet for a maximum porch 35 to 45 I just if they want a porch and all other elements um of the code are are followed I don't know that we should be saying it can be a maximum 42 because that would trigger there's some beautiful lemonade porches in River Edge that I think are more than for uh 35 sare F feet um and I think it it does add the rest I'm I'm I think that uh is good I think you brought up a question of you know uh uh Marina I think you brought up a point uh where you're talking about you gave us a couple of different choices uh but I think the 5% needs to be inclusive of the 35 I think that that needs to be stated I think that if you guys want to bring it back to a subcommittee great but at the very next meeting I'm hoping we could agree by vote to send this to the council because I just think we need to stop the the situation that's causing variance after variance after variance because everybody wants to uh because the builders and and as and my last comment and then I'll stop is I understand the price point that Mr dkin Steve has put raised but many people in River Ed and I hear this over and over again and I I you know I know Council M keno and councilman glass like I have knocked on the town I've knocked down the town five times and when people talk about renovating their homes they don't they talk primarily about returning to the community not so much you know uh this this the question of price point and they talk about um their taking over their parents' home and wanting to renovate it so I do get the idea of balancing price point to and making sure that we're refreshing our housing market but it's not been my experience that that's what people are concerned about when they're talking about staying in town they're they're talking about the overall culture of the Town um so I'm not as worried about that balancing thing if this body wants to go from 35% to 37% and leave the amenities at 5% I don't have a problem with that but as I said I I hope we can expedite this uh ordinance um so that we can we can you know uh put the builders on notice and put those who are renovating their homes on notice so we don't have a renovation and then a sale and then people coming back to us and we're now looking at for 40 42 43 44 when the town is already kind of wet and it's only getting wetter so that's that's the last my comments and thank you for allowing me to speak um I'd like to make I'd like to make a comment in regards and it just brought up to mind a couple of issues that I've run across about the corner Lots um I think you have to think about the U Street View um and what's next to the house on the corner so if you're going to have a uh one um one front yard and one side yard you can put amenities into that side yard and the neighbor next to them you know see you look down the down the street and you see front yards and now all the sudden you see uh you know a shed or or something like that in there so maybe you want to give some thought to to that to the to the neighbors and what the uh view from the street looks like for the surrounding area I can see that that's an excellent point okay Miss Mr Mayor can I give some comments from my side over here that U it's your meeting I'm I'm done with my comments uh and I appreciate the the uh the board's attention to them to whatever degree they think is is valuable I I like what I hear I particularly like the 5% Reserve that that is great uh and I also like the fact that you recognize that it might be um two scenarios of revision to the uh to the code okay let me just say one or two other things in the past when we were started looking at this we identified um the need for offsite parking off we found we felt the the board members at the time or at least that committee that e was uh was running um that to get the cars off the street was was a goal and that would require driveway expansion and the reason I mention that is if you're going to start um re looking at the uh percentages or coverages you might U Want to somehow consider that either now or later um and I don't know which is the best time to look at it but I'm just just mentioning for what it's worth because it looks like it might be a a future revision um there were some others that could very easily become future revisions and one of those you might recall and I'll just throw it out for for for for recollection purposes um we we talked about um uh fences on walls in the rear yard and so forth that's not critical now but I think um looking at driveway um expansion uh for um multiple cars uh you might want to consider some of that now rather than later and that's my general comments right now um I like the work that's been done it looks good uh hopefully we can get a better handle on the situation that we have currently in in River Ran So I've said my piece uh and I'll I'll invite any other board comments who want to add or or respond um please please go ahead uh Mr marman I I would like to just talk about the the five% um I think it's a great idea of certainly seeing that you know all the time with this problem um I'm just concerned that on a smaller lot it's not enough um so an average or you know what someone would want would say maybe you know three to 400 square feet um for a patio slash deck um we have a lot of smaller lots that are under the 7500 so I might suggest that it's 5% or a minimum number um so if you have a 500 5,000 square foot lot you know that 5% is only 275 ft and that's not a that's not a deck you know that's not an area where you can sit so it might consider that we have some sort of minimum area set aside um I'm all for I don't I wouldn't want to have it 35 plus five put aside um I would be more on the side of have it 35% but I think we need to have some sort of minimum that's set aside um you know so the person buying that house has the option of having a a reasonable size deck or patio nothing crazy you know because 5% on a 10,000 foot lot is a lot different than a 5% or 5,000 um so if we could put some sort of minimum in there I think that would make more sense um you know I think we definitely have more to look at with our smaller Lots as opposed to our bigger Lots um you know in allowing those and you know would there be any allowance for you know I I guess it can't be fixed here but for that people that have already bought those houses I guess they're they're coming for variances I guess there's really no way of helping those people that have already bought that house um you know but I just think we need to look at that that smaller lot um and I assume that we'll have other conversations about pools and you know the overall impervious coverage Beyond this um but I don't know if that's something that we can add in there because oh go ahead mayor go ahead you look like you're I just want to make sure Tom that you're writing this down because I don't know who's writing this down I'm certainly not I just want to say that and I also have comments from Eileen which I forgot to share I did send to the uh Vice chair um I'm gonna put that right now in the uh chat so you're going to see uh comments from eileene that she sent to me earlier today so if you want to look at that Ryan I agree with your with your comments and um you know I just um maybe that's something that that needs to be revised in the subcommittee yeah I I just you know I'm all for it I think we've had way too many big you know monstrous houses and people you know buying them unknowingly um you know but I just want to make sure that it's you know that people can actually do something with that set aside space so thank you I I have a question and maybe I'm not thinking about this the right way but is this going to have the impact of pretty much anybody who wants to do pretty much anything on a smaller lot that's already existing having to come for a variance I mean we already have people you know coming to us with 40% because they're on undersized Lots they're on irregular Lots they're older houses and every time they want to do anything they have to come to us for a variant because they're already non-compliant with so many things this is exacerbating that problem for every existing house in town because now we're not saying you need 35% and right now it's at 35% everybody's coming to us asking for 40 and 42 now we're basically saying you you can't go beyond 30% I mean so aren't we going to be driving every existing homeowner into having to come to us with a variance if they want to do anything I I think if they have that space already then it wouldn't I I I understand I think that I wouldn't want to cause any more problems for people but if they already have a patio I I would think it would generate but they don't that's what I'm saying we we're getting you know how many how many variances did we look at this year where people were looking to go 40% 42% because they were putting in a patio or they're putting in a pool or they're putting in some sort of amenity in almost every case that's what it was I mean there were a few additions but generally it was backyard amenities and they can't meet the 35% now we're telling them they got to meet 40 I don't know how that's going to work I I'll just answer that debate I I I think Mike you're you're right but the issue that I'm trying to get us to kind of address is flooding and if we start going on a smaller lot if you're now up to 40 45% guess what you're pushing water into your neighbor's yard and then you know and then Steve and a and Tom bearings and uh Ry D roza we're showing up to those houses because the residents are saying oh my God they put in all this you guys approved it and now I'm in a I'm in a flood zone in my backyard so I I I think you making an excellent point maybe we need to tweak the smaller homes but we don't want to tweak it too much because the issue in River Edge is flooding you know I I I don't disagree but what I'm saying I I you know I forget who said it before about you know trying to avoid the unintended consequences what we don't want to do is create a flood of variance requests for things that you know might not need it right um where where and and and again that's why I was kind of referencing the Ada thing where you know the Ada triggers come into play when you're doing uh you know construction Beyond a certain percentage of the value right of the of of the of the building you know and I don't know if that's the right trigger here but you know maybe there's some way to say hey you know what if if we're looking at somebody who's doing a major Redevelopment of a property yeah let's make sure it gets done right but if it's a homeowner that's looking to add you know a gazebo in the back um you know maybe there need maybe there is a different standard because of the square footage of the property I don't you know I just I just don't want to have this drive pretty much every construction project into needing a variance I guess that's really the the point I was trying to make I think there's a just a couple points I wanted to offer I I think it's a tough position to start distinguishing between let's say a new build and and an existing condition because at the end of the day you're trying to you know it's the land coverage and the impacts or perceived impacts that you're trying to control so if you know let's say somebody's coming in to develop a new lot and they have one of Standards versus somebody who's been there for 50 years and you know they have a separate set I don't I don't think we can have separate sets of stand your Point's well taken though and I I understand those positions that I have conversations on a weekly basis of people trying to you know live within their conditions so I get that I think a threshold question is frankly is is the 35% enough if we come to the conclusion that it is then I think that's just where we we hold the line there's a way to evaluate that and it could be simply by doing an exercise where you which wouldn't take a lot of time I understand we're trying to do this quickly um you basically have the footprints of the typical lot size 5,000 6,000 square foot 7500 and you do little boxes which show the maximum house size maximum driveway and what's left over for the backyard and and you can see you know what that gets you and if that's enough um I again as a board I I know you did talk about maybe increasing it a bit for the smaller properties don't don't we know don't we know already that 35% is Not Enough by virtue of the fact that everybody keeps coming and asking us for more than 35% in town yes I mean so we know that 35 is not enough right so we're we're so we're either talking about 30 plus 5 or we're talking about 35 plus five right and we know that the 35 is not enough so talking about 30 plus 5 makes no sense so we have to be talking about 35 Plus 5 so we need to like agree on that as a board at the outset because otherwise these conversations to me don't make much sense can I just just let me let let me say one thing there's a little bit of a disconnect in what we've talked about in general here tonight because we're also talking about the possibility of expanding driveways down the line and allowing these porches to come in where otherwise they would not because we love the way it looks and it and obviously brings values up but by expanding driveways and allowing these porches to come in which will come Myriad I think uh what happens to the flooding like then we're talking about the flooding issues again so it seems like this this ordinance as phrase right now is missing the important point of what are we really talking about number-wise and also there's two different kind of competing things we're trying to accomplish that will necessarily uh uh interject negatively with each other Mr chairman yes um yeah I I I want to just make a few brief comments um I have a lot of comments I took a lot of notes but um it's getting late and also um we're going to have further discussion down the road so I'll I'll save most of I just want to say I I don't want us to have more I I do want I do want this body tonight to be able to give the subcommittee clear ideas I'm gonna address that I hope that at the very next meeting we could have a product that we could vote up or down I agree and I was G I just don't wanted this to into okay we'll have another meeting another meeting another meeting another me no no no no that's not what I'm suggesting but I but I know that there's going to be further discussion on a lot of a lot of this proposal we're not going to vote up or down on this whole proposal tonight um so what I'm going to say what I was going to say first of all I I just I want it to be said that the committee that has done all this work to put forth this uh these changes and this these proposals has done a great job I think just even even having this in front of us is a giant step forward from from you know what we've been trying to get to for so long and um so so thank you for that I mean this is this is a great job and even if it gets tweaked and revised and changed and amended um this is a big step forward at least we have something concrete now to really dig into and to work with um I will say um just in in response well first of all I will say that I totally agree with what the mayor said about doing this in small bites and starting with what is most doable and what is most urgent which is the flood issue and and this five% issue um I think that's that's you know it's never going to be perfect we're not there there is no perfect um solution out there because whatever it is whatever we come to whatever we agree on as other people have said there's always going to be people coming for variances regardless of what we decide so we have to do something that's a little bit better than what we have now knowing that it's not going to be perfect and and Mr Mayor you said something kind of off-handed but that I thought was actually the right um the right approach when you said that you could kind of live with 37% if it includes the 5% and I actually think that's you know that's that's a good approach because yeah I agree with council member chinigo that 30 plus 5 doesn't quite work and 35 Plus 5 is not really a solution but if we just said 37% inclusive of the 5% you know I think that's a that's a fair and reasonable approach in my opinion and it doesn't you know as I said it's not perfect there's problems with it both ways but it's an improvement it's a step forward and I I think you know in the end we can we can all agree on that you know we can all agree on that number so I would say that you know that's that's something that we can sort of pull out of the overall proposal and focus on that and frankly you know if it's 38% if it's 36% we could you know we could talk about that but I think something that's a little bit higher than 35% but that includes the 5% um will will at least be a big step forward you know in dealing with the flooding issue and dealing with all the all the related issues to that um the the only other comment outside of that and this will be my last comment um that I feel like I have to make tonight is um just just on the issue of children's play areas as being a an amen a yard amenity uh I think that's just too vague of a term and so I would ask the uh because you know open grass an open grass field could be a children's play area so and I know that's not what you were thinking what you had in mind you you're talking about structures um so I would just ask the committee to you know work on work on language that makes that a little clearer rather than just children play areas so I'll stop with that and um we'll see where it goes just I had a a comment just to take a step back I think it was Mr Keno said that you know there's different sizes and all two years ago I'm looking at I can send it to everybody I put together what basically if you have a certain size lot what having a deck a reasonable size deck patio would mean for your coverage and you know it was something that we had talked about two years ago talking about and trying to help fix and it's still on my computer and nothing's ever happened from it um I'd be happy to send that out it kind of just you know the one one issue I have with kind of making the the allowable number higher is that we have, foot 1100 sqare foot 1200 square foot or 12,000 sqare foot lots that would then now be adding even more to them um you know so I I'll gladly send this spreadsheet that I have that I broke it down by the amount of houses that were in each of these brackets what having a reasonable size deck or patio would mean to that coverage um because again it it does make a big difference adding a few percent at a 12,000 sqare foot lot versus an undersized lot um so I think we just need to be mindful of that um you know to make sure that we're not exasperating the problem by now allowing bigger lots to even get even bigger to get even more covered uh but I'll I'll send that out but I think it's you know we just need to be mindful of all size different lots that we have in this town so to to move the ball forward can whoever is on the subcommittee wrap up the language and then maybe the board members come prepared to finalize a number and we could wrap the whole thing up does that make sense or do you want to deal with the number now well I I think if you if I like the number 37 and five uh rather than 35 and five I don't know how anybody else feels I I think uh it's 37 plus five 30 no five included in the 37 so let me just you know and again that's what Bruce was saying and I I don't necessarily have a a problem with that but I I will just point out that my entire time on the board now several years I have seen over and over the applications be between like 37 and 40 trying to push it over 42 and I've seen this board over and over kind of to take a stance that 40 was really what we were looking at as maximum allowable a couple have slipped through the board over 40 maybe 41% 42% but not much higher than that it's been pretty much hard stop at 40 so now we're saying a hard stop at 37 but come on in for the variance and what's going to happen people are going to come in and we're going to give them the variance like we have been giving up to that 40 I think we have set the 40 threshold what if we put a hard stop at 40 I mean maybe that's the solution Whatever It Is 40 is it you ain't getting you're not getting one percentage over 40 we need to address the flooding in this town and you know we we give you 35 plus five see my fear Dario is the human element I mean we're talking about we talk about this often we say oh you own the house now but when you sell the house it's going to go somebody else is going to come back to us the human element is is when people come before this body we want to give them relief yeah okay I I personally I have felt on a number of um of applications 40 was wrong but the body was moving in that direction a a a protest vote just didn't seem worth it um I just I just worry I fear that if we make it 40 then what we're really talking about is 45 yeah I agree that's why I think 37 is a better number well that's the only the only reason I suggest of that is with the with the caveat that would be a hard stop that it's built into the the the ordinance itself that we will not consider Beyond 40 without substantial you know reasoning behind it substantial circumstances whatever the language is I don't remember what it yeah Dario I think that's a good point you know I think a lot of you on this phone on this call know I'm a professional engineer I've been practicing in New Jersey for 40 years when I pick a number I like there to be some science behind it and it needs to be defensible so my only comment I think a lot of people are making great comments my only comment about this discussion is whatever the number is there should be good science behind it it shouldn't just be randomly selected and that's based on all the concerns right there's concerns about storm water recharge grading flooding what's the right number for this town what and there should be science behind that number and when we you know when when we have to explain to a resident why that number there should be some good signs behind it I I think if I could just briefly respond I think we do have not necessarily science but we have data data data being based on experience of what people repeatedly come back to us asking for and I I agree uh councilman that that you know people have tended to push the boundaries and but I also agree with the mayor that just you know even if you said all right this is absolutely the the line we are drawing the line here and you better have a strong reason for us to go over that line people are going to come forward prepared to make strong reasons you know they've you know is it not a strong reason that that someone just had twins and now they need more play area their yard or their kids you know or there's a pandemic and and we need to have more space in the backyard you know there's there's always something that someone can say so how are they going to control the flooding how are they going to those are the kinds of things yeah go just to finish just to finish my response yeah so so what we're actually doing is pulling the line back even if we pull it to 37 which is more you know more than 35 but now we're saying hey we just adopted this 30 7% and we just adopted this rule that the 5% amenities are included in the 37 um that's that's where we're drawing the line and of course people are going to come and push it and try to push it to 38 3940 and we'll have to deal with it at that time but at least we're doing something that's a step in the in in the direction of trying to control the flooding and everything is subject to engineering everything is subject to drainage requirements so you know know this is aren't we increasing from really 35 to 37 so how's that Abate flooding if we're increasing by 2% 5% is included in the 37 yeah and if you want to go with data you want to go scientifically with data the data is 35 is really the maximum and the purpose of this body is to hear and either Grant or deny to go above so if you go to 40 people are going to come and they're going to say we want it and I think given the human element that we're we're now going to be into 4245 yeah staying at 35 some of you feel uncomfortable with because and rightly so because you're saying well this has been the way we're doing it now we're making a change it's going to constrain and so that's why I'm suggesting 37 um personally from as a mayor not as Tom papalo but as a mayor and looking at the amount of time and money we're spending on flooding issues in an everchanging climate 35 is the maximum and we should have extraordinary uh you know reasons both the positive um Tom what is it called the positive and negative um crer criteria yeah positive and negative criteria which we almost never asked you know we almost never ask and that's what I'm talking about the human element we these people are neighbors they coming with what seems reasonable but do we really demand for the positive and negative criteria guess what we really don't hold that line so I think 35 allinclusive is from a mayor's point of view from a budget point of view from a flooding point of view from a code enforcement and other issue point of view but let's be honest maybe 37's a better number because it gives a little relief to a new new ordinance but if you want scientific 35 is the number we shouldn't be going up we should be going down that's what I'm saying I think I I think you're right about that I think we should stick to the 35 and let people come and ask us uh uh beyond the 35 instead of beyond the 37 I think the 37 invites 42 that's what's going to happen and this board is not always going to be this board there's going to be another board maybe it's another Board of people who are much you know more open to these things and I think it's better to have more stringent requirements that allows them to kind of you know uh of course the future board can change things as well but that being said I think that the more stringent requirements are going to get us closer to our goal which we'll never achieve but to to stop the flooding or to Abate flooding a little bit um I think we have to be tough on this I agree with the mayor could we I have a question could we maybe accomplish what we're trying to what we're trying to solve here by not necessarily um I mean let's let's say we we said 37% but to go higher than that would require a two-thirds vote of the board as opposed to a majority is that allowed wouldn't be allowed to do that all the the Board review of bulk variances is cons is confined and defined in the land use law under the C2 criteria or the balancing test or based on the C1 criteria which is the hard shift test so we couldn't impose an additional um requirement saying the Board needs to have a higher standard of review for this bulk requirement review so if the board wants to be more stren stringent we would have to have a lower number we couldn't set an additional requirement got it thank you is there any and I know other towns have it that have a different allowance for different surfaces so I know there are I'm gonna say the word wrong less perious less impervious products um you know there's different kinds of stones that you can use there's different kinds of materials you know can we can we is is it better to look at something like that if you are going to have a surface if you're going to have paving stones that allow more more penetration that are better for our flooding problem that you get an allowance you know it's worth 75% or whatever that number might be um you know to encourage people to use better materials that are going to have less flooding while allowing people to have the backyard amenities that they want and like I personally and I'm not an engineer but I look at a deck and I see the gaps between pieces of wood that water's getting through and it's getting to the ground you know that's not causing the same problem as a concrete driveway that has no means of allowing any water to get through so why don't we look at something like that that's gonna give people what they want but not add to our budget of you know our flooding problems yeah Ryan I agree with that and I think a more Global way to look at that I think that's very smart is if you're going to go over the code requirement how are you going to mitigate it right that's globally I think the way this needs to be looked at you know anytime someone requests a variance there has to be a mitigating measure like the kind of thing you're talking about you know I think that would be reasonable and it would allow for flexibility but they have to mitigate yeah I would just offer and I saw Ed shaking his head that Hillsdale has such standards um and specifically we're talking about decks as you mentioned Mr Gib with the caveat that it can't be paved underneath obviously that the rain can percolate to the ground um you could have certain types of pavers um and all and and the third part of that bucket would be B Pools you know the body of the water I know we've kind of made that policy decision where they should count but those are really the three buckets and that's where our applications are going over they're going over on the patios they're going over on the pools and they're going over on the deck so that is where we're seeing the most need for belief so I I think your point about creating a discount it you know for for materials that legitimately shed less water and are truly semi-permeable uh may be a solution to get to give flexibility hold the line and you know kind of achieve multiple things um it it's a good idea yeah I'm just curious does everybody think that's basically a good idea yes so maybe the committee can try to add that into the um revision that we'll hopefully see at the next meeting not to push too hard Ed do you have any idea what those allowances are in that other town if that yes I'm on the planning board for Hillsdale we give a 50% discount for faes on impervious coverage is there anything for a deck uh no I thought I think deck that doesn't that has uh that there's no storage underneath right correct and I thought that the deck had a discount in Hillsdale as well I'm sorry can you say that again I thought that the deck had a discount in Hillsdale as well I think you're correct I'm not sure I don't remember either 50 or 20% yeah I think I think it's 50% for a DE as well and pavers if you use pavers yeah I think that would make a lot of sense and it would you know I don't know if there's approved certain types of um pavers that are used or they have to be approved by the building department that they are a specific rating or whatever it is um you know and then a stipulation with the deck not having any sort of impervious coverage underneath it I think makes a lot of sense right I'm sorry can you explain can you explain what you mean by 50% discount say that again can you explain what 50% discount means 50% on impervious coverage whatever we allow for impervious coverage if they use ters they get 50% off so if if you have a 100 square foot deck you're only getting charged for 50% coverage gotcha got 50 square feet excuse yep yep got it okay thank you anything further any other comments Mr Mayor you have any questions before we I want to thank everybody I know we went essentially an hour past uh but this is this is really important work and this is necessary and Urgent and I appreciate everyone's diligence everyone's honesty thank you very very much okay thank you great um are we ready for a motion to close I'll move to J thank you second second maybe Second Great okay we we can take a voice W right um Marina yes okay all in favor I okay good night all have a good Easter good night good night everyone happy Easter Happy Passover happy Easter Happy Passover too yes Happy Passover