we'll call the meeting to order um the M regularly scheduled meeting of the municipal land use Board of the burough River Edge for Wednesday February 28th 2024 it's now 7:32 pm. all right and and you can read the the statement yeah I'll read I'll read the statement thank um this this this meeting on the municipal land use Board of the borrow of river is being held remotely and recorded via Zoom due to the burrow Council chamber unavailability and is in compliance with the provisions of the open public meetings uh act and Associated regulations notice of this remote meeting was published in the bergon record posted on the front doors of B Hall and posted on the borrows website the notice included the dial and login information necessary for public participation and access to this meeting remotely a copy of the agenda for this meeting was made available on the borrows website near the posting of the meeting notice and included in a dial in and included the dial in uh information during the public comments period of this meeting if you would like to make a public comment please press the B hand button on Zoom or dial store on 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 or unmute Yourself by pressing the microphone icon on Zoom or dialing uh store six on your telephone keypad you must state your name and address prior to making a public comment okay now that being done we will move um to the regular agenda um I'll take the roll call oh yes roll call correct all right um Mr Mayor here lost uh Mr castlin is excus tonight miss Boland here Mr merman here Mr feffer here Mr cray and Mr Kino are excused tonight Mr uh councilman glass I see him can you hear me can hear me yes and Mr Gibbons here okay all right also present is um Mr Barons our planner Mr CoStar engineer and Mr dekin the zoning officer okay before we start um I'm going to declare our usual my usual 10 pm curfew for the evening so we ask all the participants to uh be uh distinct in their presentations um moving on to the agenda under the correspondence um we have uh a correspondence pending which is the annual report of the planner and and Ed Walter um did I know it's in preparation and we'll let Tom Barons address that at this point you want to get into that now Mr merman I just well yeah I want to handle it on the correspondence I I I understand it's is in preparation and not ready for the evening okay all right let me just uh open that up real quick and I'll Breeze through that bear with me all right so board members uh you received um A draft copy of the board's annual uh report as required by the Municipal land use law and basically it gives an overview of the various types of applications the board heard in 2023 which include um a number of variances for uh single family homes a number of uh uh commercial uses involving food handlers license and two office uses um it's noted that the majority of the applications of the 19 actually 20 total applications uh is I have to revise the memo um were approved one was withdrawn and um they never came back and one was withdrawn and ultimately approved and it's noted that throughout the course of a number of those applications they were modified uh in some fashion was often the case where the applicant and board were able to come to a compromise so again we were able to find ways to you know approve most of those situations and as far as board recommendations go uh and certainly board members can add on to this um I just identified the number of zoning Ord amendments that we've discussed in the past which we do have more or less have fleshed out and we'll get that to the board immediately uh in the form of a draft ordinance so you guys can uh make recommendations to the mayor and Council as well as just commentary on this uh you know perennial issue involving the food handler license uh you know the review and the extent to which um applicants come to the board and uh you know the issue becomes they have to submit a site plan application if it's for a change of ownership or uh if there's no variant is required or there's no you know site improvements at all so just to review and make sure that um you know no changes are warranted or maybe some are and um one additional item which I'll add as a board recommendation is to deal with uh or to modify how the burrow currently treats fast food uses uh as the board will recall we had the Dunkin Donuts application which had a drive-through facility currently the ordinance is silent on drive-thru so um it's just another area where we should update and modernize the ordinance and again if any board members have any comments feel free to let me know tonight or you can send me an email or a call would be great thank you great so we we'll wait till next um board meeting to um review the any changes and and accept your uh accept your report is that the route will go yes yes that's that's appropriate okay very good okay thank you Tom um let's let's go to the minutes um board members have received copies of the minutes of the February 14th meeting um I reviewed them I did not see any changes um and I don't know if any board members had any comments or or additions to the minutes uh right if you do um I'll be open to those right now and we'll we'll address those all right not hearing any any um comments regarding the minutes U can we get a motion to accept them so moved thank you Mr second thank you m I all right um we'll do can weit I'll just do a roll call because because there were so many uh there's were some AB absences so I'll just call the roll for those eligible um Mr Mayor yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes councilman glass yes Mr Gibbons yes okay the motion passes very good next um item are the memorializations um first one is um Peter and Grace Kim 536 Maro Court block 702 Lot 12 um were there any comments by any of the U board members on that memorialization I must say that I didn't receive that till late today and I myself didn't get a chance to look at it um so that's the status uh of that right now Marina um so if board members don't have any comments or or are regarding memorializations so I'll entertain a motion to accept it the Kim one so moved second okay um I'll do a roll call Vote for This Mr Mayor yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes um councilman glass yes and Mr given yes okay the motion passes wonderful all right moving right along we have the memorialization of Banks and Dolan 126 Adam Avenue block 612 L 13 um likewise is true um I received them late and I personally didn't get to review it but if any other board members have any comments deletions or I'd be glad to hear him otherwise um not if I don't hear any we'll accept the motion we'll entertain a motion to accept them so moved thank you ien I'll second thank you okay I'll take the role Mr Mayor yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes councilman glass yes Mr Gibbons yes okay the motion passes okay moving right along um my agenda has an item for discussion which is which is the Cannabis ordinance proposed and I'm going to read what I have on the discussion heading here permitting one retailer on the far side of r at or near Liberty Travel location this location is surrounded by the city of hackensac and does not border Residential Properties um the review is for consistency with our master plan so since this is a mayor and Council item I'll um Beering to either the mayor or councilman glass layers on to be the point man and Lead this discussion or presentation that they wiy for uh Miss Marina I don't believe that that would be appropriate because um since Council M Glass and I have already voted on it and we'll be voting on it again I don't know that we should lead the discussion we certainly uh all questions regarding discussion can come to us but I don't believe that it would be appropriate for us to lead the discussion that that's that's fine I can um go over the the ordinances and also um Mr Baron prepared a memorandum that went out today um to discuss it um at the mayor and council meeting on Monday um the governing body adopted three ordinances relating to establishing a cannabis overlay Zone in the bureau um ordinance 24-4 specifically deals with the Land Development ordinance in the burrow and establishes um Can the Cannabis overlay Zone um which would be an overlay of the existing zoning in the area a map was provided to show exactly where the Zone would be located and it's to the west of Route 4 I'm I guess it's Southwest um portion of the burrow and and the ordinance 24-4 provides all of the different conditions that would be required for a cannabis operator to obtain site plan approval in that for um a location in that zone um under the other two ordinances ordinance 24 -5 it's an ordinance to amend the licensing section of the burrow code to permit one cannabis retail license in the burrow and then the second ordin the third ordinance is 24-6 which would establish um taxation for cannabis uh retail sales in the burrow which aligns with typic aligns with the state law and a lot of other towns um are adopting these similar taxes um the board's job tonight is to just look at 24-4 for master plan consistency um the other two ordinances are related and if there's minor comments or anything that you're interested in discussing we can discuss that as well but our main task is to review 24-4 for master plan consistency and I don't know if Tom you wanted to provide a brief update as well sure I think that that was a good summary of the three ordinances that were for forwarded to the board um so my memo basically focused on how those ordinances relate to the burrow master plan and so I took a look at the Burrow's most recent comprehensive master plan which was adopted in 1984 I also took a look at the 's uh 2020 reexamination report and 2022 uh reexamination report Amendment and so just starting with the 1984 master plan um it place at the time that document was adopted uh it was the area in question again south of uh route four which is um trying to think what's there now Ethan Allen there was the Liberty Travel I think it was coconuts way back when there's the um adult daycare uh Sunny teas is over there so that whole end of town is the area that we're talking about and at one time in the 80s was in the B3 Zone at some point that was rezoned to within the C2 Zone which um as you know allows uh a number of retail uses so in terms of pertinent goals and objectives uh I'll just give kind of a general overview um you know some of the themes are that the burrow just looked to you know bolster its limited commercial areas in particular the south end of town which is the area that we're talking about to come up with you know creative and flexible approaches to uh Pro provide for a variety and diversity of uses as well as to keep um you know spaces occupied and and eliminate vacancies it also talks about minimizing uh traffic and parking impacts I'll with respect to the traffic and parking I'll just offer that having been involved with these ordinances and a few site plan applications for uh cannabis retail uses in other towns that you know the question always comes up about you know what are the traffic impacts about this um I think the experience is that now now that there's at least 72 of these retail operations throughout New Jersey the novelty is sort of worn off a bit and people are getting a little more used to it and comfortable there's also a bit more competition so where you might have had one in you know one corner of the state there's now a few choices so um I think these uses have been able to regulate themselves somewhat that's not to say that you know with the grand opening there might not be some level of interest but I think there are a few ways that these operations have been able to control traffic we don't need to get to all them tonight but part of that has to do also with mobile uh ordering and just a point that I'll bring up now is that the way this process will work is if the council adopts these ordinances and um the burrow authorizes the issuance of only one uh retail cannabis operator that the process would be that an applicant would have to apply to the council get endorsement from the council at that point they would have to come back to this board the land use board submit a site plan application vet all the aspects of the use of the site including traffic parking security the whole nine um and at that point they could do it either after or simultaneously they could pursue a license from the state so that's how the process works again we're only talking about one license and then moving on to the 2020 uh reexamination report there was mention at the time that the state was about to you know look into this uh and eventually they did put the ballot question on the November general election um the uh the item one out the majority of New Jersey voters indicated that they were for recreational marijuana the stat and River Edge is that I believe it was 66% approximately of River Edge voters uh were in support of recreational marijuana uh uses um and then in the 2022 report it just acknowledged that the Burrow's position at that time was that the use simply wasn't permitted and part of that had to do with once the regulations uh or or once cannabis uses were were legalized in New Jersey municipalities had to pick a side you either had to Dive Right In and say yes we allow it but at that point you would have been committed to stick with it for a period of five years you couldn't turn back and say you know we changed our mind so most towns um took the approach of you know let's wait for the actual regulations to come out let's see what we're getting into and let's let things develop and evolve a bit so we can understand what the impacts of these things actually are going to be and again we're now we're a few years down the road again there's about 72 of these in operation so relating this back to the master plan consistency uh review in summary um again I think there's some uh aspects of this where it promotes again this diversity in commercial uses I don't see any inconsistencies uh in that regard and that's really what the board is tasked with to see if there's any inconsistencies in the master plan um certainly the reexamination reports identify the Burrow's status at that time but I don't think they suggest that the burrow and you know no point would be open to the idea of it um and certainly board members you can interpret these documents um uh as you see fit but again that's just my perspective so um if anyone has any questions board members feel free to uh ask away Mr baring I just want to um add a little bit thank you for that wonderful presentation um when the uh constitutional amendment was completed and uh and and cannabis was moving forward the legislature had failed to get the regulations out and so um most municipalities like River Edge had to choose if we did not make it illegal if we did not prohibit cannabis in our town it would automatically become uh be available on town so most towns most of the 565 municipalities in state New Jersey uh issued uh ordinances that denied or prohibited all six licenses and this is only uh upon uh we have been approached we did not go out to be approached but we were approached by uh cannabis organizations for us to reconsider license five and only license five and that would be um that would be retail and the overlay would uh place all of the appropriate um properties that license 5 May occurr in uh on the other side of Route 4 so uh it's and there are no rivered residential homes in those area they are surrounded on three sides by hackin saac and River Edge is uh is part of River Edge crosses the route for highway so this is the part that crosses the roote for Highway uh in addition to this the council sent out notice to all to my knowledge to all we we asked the clerk to send out notification of this to all of our committees our boards our um commissions uh our Recreation Department saying if the public would like to comment the public did come and comment we had an open public meeting just for that where no action took place and at that oddly enough the the number of people who spoke in favor versus the number spoke against was almost exactly the uh number of Riveredge residents who voted for us uh I think we had essentially 61 or 62% voted uh at at our uh open meeting and we had 66 I believe uh in the actual um uh constitutional amendment I believe it was Constitutional Amendment so I wanted to add all these things the ordinance that you see was created by uh by an attorney Mr Lana who does does this for many municipalities and in addition to that our own uh councilman glass did a fine tooth cone uh review of it and at the meeting that uh not the meeting where the public commented but at um Monday's meeting we uh we went over the three ordinances and any minor uh but errors of inconsistency not inconsistency lack of clarity uh councilman glass was able to help us um check and any typos he was able to check so we are great we have great deal of confidence our confidence is high that the ordinances um uh reflect what state law expects of them and what the people have rege and I know if any member of council would like to ask about any of the minor uh Corrections that were made on Monday night that councilman glass um should or might be able to to answer those questions again thank you Mr baren I I return the floor to you Miss sttinley thank you so we could um see if the board has any questions on this um and then the we would be asking for a vote um or a motion to find that the ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan so double negative but that's the way we have to um I do have a couple of questions um not necessarily related to the consistency with the master plan I it does appear to me that it is consistent with the master plan um but I guess there's a couple points of clarity I'm not sure if Mr Mayor or Mr glass can answer um do we need to have in there that on any change of ownership that there is another site approval much like we do for um food establishments I know it does say in there that um all applicants will undergo but does it need to say to clarify that on any change of ownership there needs to be a new site approval I'm not sure who that question is really for I'll jump I'll jump in uh unless someone else want I would just offer there's a couple ways to do that one is that you could require it in the ordinance um the alter the other alternative is that ultimately when an applicant comes to this board you can require that as a condition of approval too so uh at your point Mr gibons I don't think the ordinance currently um anticipates that but um I I think if that's your recommendation we could note that certainly I I mean I I would personally rather have that um for this establishment I'm kind of up in the air on the whole food handlers license but that's a different story um I would think on this I I could see it Changing Hands over over the the course of time if this does actually happen um so I would prefer having it on any change of ownership that we ask for approval from this board with a site plan even even if everything stays the same like we do with food handlers license Mr G I think that's an excellent suggestion and uh if the council chooses to do so probably what would happen is we would do a second reading it would be approved and then an amended uh an ordinance for Amendment would happen later in the uh spring and uh and the ordinance would just be amended to that okay so I would personally suggest that um and then just two other questions um I did notice in some in I think it was in the ordinance um speaking of delivery is that something that if you have a retail establishment that we have to allow for delivery are we allowing for delivery with this particular ordinance well so miss dley correct me if I'm one of the things if you didn't approve any of the six licenses one of the things you couldn't interfere with was delivery uh if another municipality allowed a license for delivery they would then be delivering um the delivery uh a delivery company would be uh HED or stationed there but um Miss dley please correct me or Mr Barons please correct me I don't uh I think the the state statute the Constitutional amendment made it clear that interference with delivery was was not permitted from municipality to municipality yes that's that's correct the burrow can't prohibit delivery um within its within its bounds so um even so there there could be delivery um of cannabis products in The Bu there probably already already is I I I'll just add and this might answer your question so let's say The Operators is in New Milford they can deliver to River Edge but a delivery service cannot open in River Edge as their home base if that adds because that would require a separate license under a separate classification so the only thing that can operate out of Riveredge is the retail use okay so that is answering my question so this if there is to be a cannabis distri distributor in Riveredge it will not be allowed to deliver correct okay um and then one other question that came up I think during the uh public meeting is like merchandise um and we wouldn't want this kind of adverti to kids of someone wearing a River Edge cannabis shirt or you know whatever the name of this company might be um is that something that we can prohibit of any kind of merchandise for the for the facility you know so it doesn't become kids wearing t-shirts you know of this dispensary or I don't even know if that's a thing um but is is that something that can be considered when you say prohibit merchandise you mean hanging in the window or they can't sell hats or shirts that say whatever prohibiting the sale of um you know I don't know if that's even legal I'm not sure if if the burrow could prohibit that specifically but there are proh U prohibitions against um displays in window and advertising um things like that that's under the state law my my concern would just be that again you know kids are wearing whatever this company name is um you know or or selling cannabis you know pot t-shirts or you know just I think you get where I'm going um yes one of the things is that children and teenagers can't go into the business they cannot purchase from the business um but I understand where you're coming from I I just want because the public sometimes gets a little concerned there were some questions about that and our Attorneys at the time of the presentation made it very clear that um first of all cannabis uh prices at the uh if a retail establishment open it's much higher than you can get it on illegally on the street um uh miners cannot enter the building and there are many restrictions about paraphernalia it cannot be visible I believe inside the store everything uh and no cannabis is visible inside the store it's it's purchased and it comes out in a sealed container I think that's correct mly Mr Barons yeah I mean the the name of the business can't be so obvious as you know a pot shop or something like that and you know there's not supposed to be any symbols or anything that give it away you can't have anything in the you know uh pipes or anything in the windows so they are supposed to be fairly discreet and anyone that I've you know there's a few on Route 17 I mean you probably wouldn't know if you weren't looking for it yeah no I understand all of that and I understand it's GNA be more expensive I'm just you know when I was growing up you know kids had Bud Light t-shirts and also we we we did add we added that it may not contain images that Mark it to an underage demographic all this stuff though it's going to be kind of tricky to enforce even I think Mr gibbons's what you're suggesting so the practicality of enforcing it comes into issue here as well but like I said we did add a provision in the ordinance I think to partly address your concern okay I mean even if it's a deterrent you know and right you all answer my questions thank you Mr chairman or Marina somebody Mr feffer yeah thank you yeah I just wanted to jumping on on the point about t-shirts and and U any kind of restriction on that um my guess I haven't looked at cases on that but my guess is that that would run a foul of constitutional uh First Amendment rights and if we tried to prohibit people from whether they're kids or anybody from wearing certain t-shirts whether it's advertising or or shirts with symbols on it um we're opening ourselves up to a lawsuit I'm I'm not suggesting saying kids can't wear it I'm saying we shouldn't sell it that that's where I'm going kids you know they're gonna do what they want but if there's no way of stopping it that's fine I just wanted to bring it up yeah I understand that I'm just saying that that the two are linked and a good suggestion um if if it is added to the recommendations back to the council we will have our attorneys look into uh that and then when we make the change for the what was the previous suggestion Ryan uh the site plan approval being for any new owners yeah um so in in in the spring when we if if we can put that into our ordinance I would think the council would be very eager to do so perfect thank you I I would just add just real quick to that uh you know any operational questions the board will be able to ask the actual operator when they come back to this board so you can flat out ask them you know what type of merchandise will they be selling I don't know if you can necessary necessarily prohibit it but you can maybe get a straight answer as to what you know is available or isn't available I'll ask that question thanks Okay Marina I have a comment yep if nobody else says I'll go list if you want all right um it's more of a clarification I'm looking at 244 um you makes Provisions for a site plan review um am I to assume that that's our standard site plan review where um the board uh uh reviews all the site materials and the various site uh uh amenities and problems and concerns such as uh circulation parking um and so forth my my concern is that we are doing what what we kind of look at as our normal site plan um in depth review uh it doesn't seem to say that in your item d uh it just says that the site plan the Plenty board shall review uh it doesn't say review and approve I'm looking on your page five and six item D yes so since this would be a conditional uh the re the Cannabis retail would be a conditional use in the overlay zone so as a conditional use it would have to obtain uh approval from the land use board um our St our St okay I I will make a comment to um I will put in a note that the language could be clarified thank you very much I'm concerned about I think we did clarify the language on Monday uh do you remember that um got the latest copy I received today and the word and approval is missing all right so this is a good thing we can also add that uh when we um revi make any corrections in the early spring I know it's looking far ahead but I just want to make sure oh it's it's a it's an excellent point and um I I from what the attorney had said both in the presentation and what our attorney said on Monday it seems like um it was it was clear from them that your approval is necessary if you don't approve it it doesn't move forward that was said by both Mr Lana and Mr rup uh Mr Lana on the presentation night and Mr rup on uh Monday night and uh because that conversation came up when we're looking at the language about the L's board reviewing uh so on the record we have two attorneys whose opinion is that this board has to approve it okay and is it possible to re re rewrite that um item D to includes the words approval I would assume the council would be very open to that um I I couldn't imagine the council opposing that so when we clean up the language uh in Spring uh we we could do that wonderful thank you um I had one other question um and I don't know if you can answer it uh I was in on the mayor and Council Zoom meeting and I believe um the lawyer uh Mr Lano mentioned that there was you're looking at a window of maybe a year or more before uh we might see a site plan application is that still valid does it look further I I know it's aisal ball yeah I think he was simply talking about uh kind of a progression um and um and the requirements to go to the state to come back from the state to go to the council to go to the lanyard board um but there is no guarantee it would happen um sooner or later there is simply an understanding of how the process works okay very good um that's my um my questions um if no other board members um have any comments Marina you could call for a motion and um I I I assume that you need a motion from this board uh tonight that U what's presented meets the uh master plan um requirements is that correct yes that yes that the ordinance 24-4 is not inconsistent with the master plan and that the board um recommends the changes that were discussed so if we get a motion a second and a vote I'll prepare a resolution for the next meeting um that we will present to the council okay if does anyone if anyone else doesn't have questions I would certainly present that motion second um so I would propose that uh ordinance 24-4 is not inconsistent with our master plan and along with the recommendations that were brought forward tonight um to send this along to the mayor and counsel second and second from Mr pepper I'll do a roll call vote for this um Mr Mayor yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes councilman glass yes Mr gibons yes all right the motion passes right so we're back we're back on the regular schedule now yes okay let me get back to my notes here we're moving right [Music] along all right so next we have the I got so many papers on this next we have the um completeness review for David Arabi 246 Wayne Avenue River Edge lock 372 lock 26 um I have block 9006 lot 26 is that correct um well I'm looking at Mr Baron's letter here and it said 372 lot 26 let me go to the the agenda says a different blot and block correct lot is 906 uh block 9906 lot 26 it was incorrect letter of denial okay okay so Marina which one we use the correct one obviously we'll use block 906 L lot 26 and prior to the meeting I viwed the proofs submitted by the applicant and found them to be sufficient for the board to hear the application tonight okay Mr Barons yes um so the applications for a pool uh and Associated improvements in the rear yard U the applicants submitted a a plan for the pool as well as some details and so it appears that the application materials are sufficient and can be deemed complete M Mr Costa anything on completeness sorry about that I con car you can go forward uh plans have been submitted reports have been given out Mr chairman my opinion is the board can certainly take it to public good thank you um so do we need a motion for uh complete this acceptance yes so moved Mr Gibbons second second Miss Boland and I'll do a roll call Mr Mayor yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr peffer yes councilman glass yes Mr gibons yes okay the motion passes okay so we'll move on to new business and new business is the same David or rabby um 246 Wayne Avenue it's 9006 we say yeah L lot 26 that is correct okay and it's the proposal to install new inground pool in the rear yard uh borrow article ordinance 14 41615 maximum line approv coverage permits a maximum approval lot coverage of 35% where the property has an existing improve light coverage at 39.4 which would be increased to the non-conforming 40.0 variance the uh variance relief is correct corrected um welcome board Mr rabie um I'll have to I'll swear you in yes if you please raise your right hand whoever is going to be giving testimony um if you just raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes do and could you please state your name and spell your last name for the record I Am David Arabia a r a b i a and your address 246 wav River Edge okay and I see it Mr mclen is here um your engineer and we've had Mr mclen here before but if you could just give your um qualifications and some background Just For The Rocker sure uh sh Mullen last name spelled MCC l l l a n um I graduated from NGIT in 1997 with the Bachelor of Science in civil engineering been a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey since 2004 and I've testified at boards in Mars Pake Essex Hudson and Burton counties as well as this board all right thank you and do you have anyone else here with you that will be providing testimony um my wife is on the call also I don't know if she'll be giving testimony but you may want to swear in I guess all right if you just raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yeah and then just state your name and spell your last name for the record please Danielle Arabia 246 Wayne Avenue last last name is spelled a r a b i a all right thank you and uh Mr Arabia you could proceed um Sean will also give testimony obviously like if there's any engineering questions but um we are looking to install a pool in our rear yard um we have you know two daughters who we're members of the River Edge pool we've been members of it for years um at a certain age it seems like people stop going there um I have two daughters that kind of have aged out of the pool um and I noticed with myself and my wife working full-time last year I seem to have my kids on their phones a lot and indoors um it's really just adding the pool for them and for us for family time um is really the reason why we're looking to do it okay and I Mr mlen if you could just explain the the variances and and what is actually being proposed and if you you can share your screen if you'd like sure I'll just go through the existing conditions briefly um the property is in the R1 resid itial Zone um he it is deficient on a lot width where we have 68.6 3 or 75 ft is required um the existing house is is not conforming as far as sidey guards it's got 5.1 and 4.8 where seven and half is required and the side yard is deficient at 9.9 where uh the combined side yard is 9.9 where both side yards is supposed to be 18 and the impervious coverage is 39 four where 35% is all that's allowed you can see here um we're adding a swimming pool with a small paper apron around it um the pool and coping combined is only 560 square feet the apron's 320 square feet and the pool equipment which is over here on the right corner is 20 square feet and to um help get the coverage down are removing uh two existing patios in the rear um the increase from the existing to proposed just over over 50 square feet um they giving us a total impervious improved coverage of 39.9% where 35% is all that's allowed um just briefly as far as uh brought up in Mr kasa's letter uh this plan does not show any type of seepage pit or drainage chamber for the pool but um as as part of approval we will uh add that to the plan and uh submit that to Mr coster's review that that pretty much sums it up and I'd be happy to answer any questions any questions by board members all right let me let me run down all right list here let's start with hen you have any questions um yes so the house looks like it's it's brand new and with the sidey yard setback was this presented before uh the zoning board the sorry okay I I can speak the house itself was a ranch um we we did not add to it we just put a second level on the house um it's a pie-shaped lot so it's very narrow in the front but it gets wider in the back so it was an existing non-conformity that didn't go before the board yes okay um sorry I just wanted to address that point so the ordinance allows people to do vertical additions that have non-conforming setbacks so that's how that happen just okay how about the paos were they on the plan that was presented to the board no sorry presented to the burrow no they were not okay all right that's I had no intentions of ever leaving here any other questions e no that's it for me okay Mr Feer any questions for the applicant yeah just one quick question on the area where the pool equipment is is there is there some kind of structure around that or or it's just uh I assume the fil filter is there and some other things but is there a fence around that or a shed or anything like that um if you wanted us to add like a decorative fence around it we could like one of those I'm not I'm not suggesting anything oh no there's there's nothing around it we um uh the setback seems pretty far but if the board wanted it we can add it okay thank you that's all I had C and glass any questions for the applicant at this point just confirming the obvious so the two patios will be removed um what will they be replaced with um probably nothing or maybe some Crush Stone around the fire pit but we are you know we don't need um we don't need them it's it's just you know what we have out there you can use something other than that so it'll be a perious surface sir Landscaping yes Landscaping yeah thank you Landscaping we can you know some crust stone or something thank you Mr gibons any questions of the applicant at this point nothing Beyond what's already been asked thank you all right Mr Mayor yes I'm looking at uh the Google um 20 no 2020 image of the house and of course it's a ranch at that time and you're saying you didn't extend it uh on either side is that correct the sides of the house hold on let me look I think there was a portion in the back within the setback that was added I think it was 8 by8 um for like a room behind the garage for like storage inside the house and I'm also seeing a single car garage but on the um on the documents presented I see what appears to be a double car garage I mean double car driveway I actually took living space out of the house so believe it or not the ground level of the house was larger before I did the renovation so what we did is that was a dining room when you came into the house you came in through the front door and there was a very large dining room to the LA no no no I'm I'm talking about I'm sorry if I was unclear I'm talking about the driveway it looks like a single car driveway and now it looks like it's a double car driveway yes it's uh made wider yes okay so you widened the driveway you added two patios and you went from probably uh a non a conforming um improved coverage to a non-conforming improved coverage because I'm looking at the document that you presented and it says that existing is 39.4 and what you're looking for is 39.9 is that correct yes so you illegally increased the size of the house when you redid it and this was not brought before the board is that correct no which part of the patios yes I added a patio to the left of the house yes and the right I did not increase the size of the house without approval no no I'm talking about the uh improved coverage so uh you doubled the driveway and you put into two patios after the building department approved you because the building department thought you were consistent at 35 but now what the document that's presented to us is 39.4 which was never uh approved by this board Mr bearings was the 39.4 between November 2020 and today ever brought before this board the 39.4 no I I don't believe it was I would so the existing condition is out of um was never approved by this board I mean the right this property has not gone to the board until now it's my understanding so one of my one of my concerns is you're asking us to approve an inground pool and you're saying you're going to take out the two patios but you had already put the two patios in without our approval so what assurances do we have that you won't simply put the patios back or use an impervious coverage in the future I mean I'm wondering how we can assume in good faith that you will keep to the uh to the decision of the board when you already are outside of the uh approval of the board with the patios and the double driveway that currently exists well the double driveway was approved on the plan um that that came before you that that was submitted to the town but not the patios not the patios no I mean I never had an intention of leaving the pool is never something that I ever thought I would do so whenever I was going to go to sell the house the patios would come out so they're just coming out prematurely now so yes I would like to add that for us um there's a huge tradeoff you know we thought we would spend a lot of time sitting and eating outside with our family um and the reality has come that both of our work schedules have prevented prevented us from doing a lot of those things um but we know that if our children have the opportunity to you know use the the pool recreationally during the day um that I know they're getting outside and I can sit out there and watch them and I can work at the same time I'm not as concerned with having to eat dinner you know on an outdoor patio I would rather spend the day outside with them um seeing them doing something productive um so I understand I guess the point I'm getting to is this and Mr Miss dley and Mr Burns please correct me if I'm in incorrect if we don't approve the pool tonight they still have to remove the patios because they never got an approval to go up to 39.4 improved coverage is that correct Mr Baron I think I I'll respond and usually before we get any of these applications I do an overview of the coverages so I'll answer your question in maybe a roundabout way may so if you took the patios out of the equation and you looked at the the house the driveway and other improvements you'd be at a conforming coverage of 31.4% so that does give you some amount that you could develop the backyard approximately my brain stopped working uh 3.6% for the backyard so you know I I would say this does differ from you know we see some flippers that Max it out and they leave nothing so there is some amount was approved for the backyard and that's you know kind of where we are and what we're talking about so I don't know if that answers your question but that's you know from a number standpoint where we're at I'm I'm no I'm I'm still confused if the pool didn't go in isn't it at 39.4 Mr barings it it's over the the 35% that's allowed correct okay and now that this board is made aware of that uh if the if the board chose not to approve the inground pool the patios would still have to come out is that not correct or in because in previous discussion yeah before we go forward if we approve the pool then there's no issue but if we don't improve the pool would they have to remove both patios I well I think might and maybe I answered the wrong way they'd have to get back to a conforming coverage so it wouldn't be the entirety of the pet but some amount to get back to 35% okay because they they had G 35% without approval uh well I I think the original plan that was approved was approximately 35% certainly not over but um you know again in terms of any corrective action that would be the magic number let's say because if you if you removed all the patios you'd be down then again to 31.4% and we wouldn't want that I just want that clear because uh in our deliberations we have to understand that if we approve this plan then they will now have an approved 39.9% but if we don't approve this plan then they will have to remove enough of the either The Madam driveway or the patios for them to return to the 35% that they were supposed to be at that's correct right can I just interject a question could at that point if we do not approve the pool we could approve them for what is on the property if they decide that that's what they want to do because I believe we've had that situation in the past where there was a pre-existing not conforming that wasn't approved that we then approved for that person yes I believe that is true is that true yes that's correct so in the process of this application coming before the board it was revealed that the patios are were not approved um and they could be approved at this time they could be removed at this time and the pool be added um or if the application's denied then portions of the improved lot coverage would have to be removed to to be compliant with whatever the plans were that were submitted at the time of the addition okay that's I just wanted to clarify that as as we move forward thank you yes and I you know I will fully finish the rear yard where you can come take a look and see that they'll be it will conform with what I'm showing you yeah I think that you know granted the papers that are back there will probably used for the coping of the pool um and you'll see a fully finished situation back there that would be cost prohibitive to finish and then take it out and do it again you know I would show you you know they'll be able to come walk I we can some photographs you I mean I know that the engineer comes and looks and you know Steve comes and looks for the final sign off so Mr Ari are you saying you are not going to install the pool no I would like to install the pool I would rather remove the patios all right if there are any other member comments at that point I I'll I'll present my can I ask a quick question just because we've talked about a lot of different things so it is my understanding correct that we're basically you're you're coming here basically asking for a swap you take out the patios you put in a pool but basically the coverage Remains the Same in terms of percentage yes or we can even install the pool minus the coping if you wanted and it comes in less okay now I just I I just wanted that question answered because the the the other issue is that you did the patios without approval but I just wanted to be clear that what you're coming here with is essentially a swap you're not coming here with any proposal that increases the the coverage it keeps the coverage the same but it swaps out the patios and and you're coming here you're asking for approval for the pool and I fully understood when I came here I did not try to change what was in the yard I fully came here showing you what I did um understanding this and I I know this this isn't something I didn't know but I also wanted to be forthcoming with you when I came here yep okay thank you U Mr mman I'm sorry I have a quick question I'm sorry can you hear me yes it looks like just a question at the closest point I'm kind of in the front yard the structure is on one side about 5.1 feet and on the other side about 4.8 feet from the property line um well you need to go on to the neighbor's properties to get equipment to construct the pool into the backyard um it's a small machine that we use to get back there um my neighbor is fully aware of it they're fine with it um it the machine gets their m that are put down the machine goes in the backyard it stays in the backyard and then it comes out and it comes out on big rubber mats where it doesn't disturb the land around it it's not a very big machine that goes back there you can't fit a b very big machine back there it's very it's not technically that big of a pool um so a small machine can do everything okay Mr class thank you all right and I can get you something signed by my neighbor if you wanted it you know I'm very close with them all right I usually wait till last when I'm chairing so um I'll give you my observations my observations is that you have a huge lot your lot size is 147% over our normal 7500 square foot minimum so you have a huge lot there to start with so when we start talking percentages we're not talking normal percentages on on a smaller lot you're talking percentages on a lot that's almost 50% greater than we normally have so let's be clear on that my it's my opinion uh and I agree with the mayor's uh observations that I'm going to put it a little bit differently that you created a uh a situation that's over the 35% and now you're you're asking us to hold the existing that you created at 39.4% um so you created your own hardship and now you want us to eat it um I'm not so certain um I I conform to that thinking now going along with that what about putting in a smaller pool have you considered that to get your uh coverage down the the reality is a smaller pool becomes a cocktail pool it's just a giant you know it's an oversized waiting room like it' be three and a half feet deep you know that this is the you know otherwise you can't get a six foot pool there's regulations that come with it so in order to get a pool that's 6 feet deep this isn't even 8 feet the size has to be this minimum size it's kind of why we even designed a kidney shape wol to fit like with the property aesthetic well right now I'm not so I'm not so convinced that uh you should be able to hold that hardship variance that you yourself created I I I I can't see myself approving this this coverage the way it is no matter how you cut it so even if the patios are removed you're saying that it's an issue that's correct the patio say the mayor just proved don't belong there you arbitrarily went in and put them in and now you're claiming those is a hardship I'm I'm actually not claiming that's a hardship you created one then what then what is your purp how does the town benefit from this installation what are the benefits to the town I took an old house and I improved it that was sitting on a piece of property that was empty I didn't increase the print I went up so for me the backyard is something I spend time with my family I don't you know it's you haven't convince me I mean before go ahead I didn't you mean to cut you off no it's fine I mean I'm just okay I don't know if I'm you know I under I did not I left the things on the plan so you can see what I did like I came here forthcoming um it wasn't that I tried to tell you I did something I didn't um I kept the pool at a smaller size I know of other applications that have come before the board across the street from me his lot smaller than mine he's got a bigger pool than that in his backyard that was approved here ago I tried to keep it smaller you know um that's what I try to do all right any other questions or comments from the board members at this point in time before we go out to the public do you have anything else to present before we go publicly okay board members any questions further questions at this point before we go public all right not hearing any um I'll accept the motion to uh go to the public for comments I'll second thank you um all in favor I I I any any opposed okay so we are open to the public if you're interested in commenting or asking questions about this application please use the raise hand button on Zoom all right we do have one person so I'll ask that you please state your name and address for the record hi uh my name is Darren uh I'm living in 250 Wayne Avenue and what is your last name Lau thank you you can make your comment or questions now yeah sounds great uh I mean it was wonderful hearing from all of you guys I really appreciated all of your concerns and I think this brings us like to a wonderful point where you know we can have like public discourse and just talk about like the situation in River Edge and I think one of the main concerns that my family has been having is that recently we've been noticing a bit more water issues inside our basement and I think we just are slightly concerned that with more soil being taken away from our neighbors's property that it could lead to flooding concerns and increased water runoff into our yard I was just wondering if Mr Arabia or his engineer have like any studies just to like like give us a little bit of Peace of Mind to make sure that like we won't be like negatively impacted I think it's great that you and your family want to spend time together outdoors and we certainly do not want to impact that but we just want to make sure it doesn't cause any damage to our house okay I can I can speak to that hold on a second who whoa whoa we're gonna take all the public comments in one and and we're gonna bundle them together and there's going to be one answer given so Miss steinley we want to see if there's any others out there um all right are those all of your questions sir yeah I think our main com like concern is just ensuring that you know removal of like increased soil doesn't like further like increase the amount of water we get into our home but other than that like I just want to just hear about this information I don't have any other like qualms about like the development okay all right thank you any others there are no other members of the public present okay okay Mr Arabia you can you can answer the the or you are your professionals could address the comment from the public should we close to the public first do we need to um yes we can close yeah okay correct motion to close to the public second okay all in favor I I all right so Mr mclen you can answer sure I'll just just share my screen again uh so the um member of the public with the question are you Lot 27 or are you Lot 25 or a different lot he hung up 27 27 okay so um as you can see that the the way the water flows now now is it comes from right to left so it comes from the from our our side of the property and across onto your property so um the pool itself almost acts like a retention system um most pools have five to seven inches of freeboard so you know the way the water uh the way it works now is in this area where the pool is uh when it rains you know the the water at first gets absorbed into the ground into the grass into the ground but after a certain amount of time when the grass becomes saturated then that water starts to run off your run off of our property not to your property so what put the pool does is that this entire area where the pool is going instead of some of it going into the ground then the rest of it flowing off onto your property is the pool captures it and what I I testified earlier what we're going to do is we're going to have a seepage pit so um once the pool collects the water that water will then go to a seepage pit where it'll be completely percolated into the ground so you know the um putting this pool here as long as as well as removing these patios is going to lessen the amount of water that flows from our property onto your property okay Mr rabby anything else you want to respond to uh no I I mean I think that that's about it Mr um Mr merman I have a question for Mr mlen Sure Mr mcllin are you saying that the pool both the pavers and the coping are below grade because if they're not why would we assume that the water once the ground is saturated would go into the pool they would instead meet a barrier which would be either the lip of the pool or not unless the pool itself between the air apron and the the coping are below grade or am I mistaken about that yeah so just just think about this area where the Pool and Patio is now that's grass right now so when it rains the the ground absorbs that water but at a certain point it's gets it stops absorbing water and it flows off the property by putting this pool in here the pool acts like a detention system so when it rains all the water goes in the pool and as it as that water rises then that we that water gets transferred to a seepage pit where it'll be per into the ground so you know the water used talking about runoff from the uh from the Lot 25 Side You're simply talking about water being retained in the pool and when the pool begins to overflow it goes into a seafish pit is that what you're saying right so that so you know during a storm some water is gonna be is going to go into the ground some water is going to run off the property but in the area of the pool but once the pool if the pool is installed zero water in that area will run off the property it'll all be stored in the pool and then transferred to the seage pit so the amount of runoff that will come off this property post construction will be less than pre-construction I understand thank you for the clarification you're welcome can I follow up on a question about that sure sure thank you I mean I guess I have two questions one is um how how much out of the year is the pool going to be covered I assume there's going to be a cover on the pool for a certain period of time let's say September through May yes okay so as I as I I I testified to earlier we're gonna have a drain around the Pool and Patio so um when the pool is covered the water that falls on the on the cover will will go into there'll be a perimeter drain around Pool and Patio that will go into the seage pit so the water will still be caught even when the pool is covered okay the cover also that's used on the pool the water runs through that cover it's not a cover that's solid so it just keeps leaves out of the pool the water is dropped in the pool so in the in the winter time it's dropped to about half full and then the stretch cover that goes on top of it water runs through that top so I know what you're thinking you're you're wondering if it's like a a that goes over it it's not yeah I mean I used to have a pool and it was you know some water leaked through but it wasn't really it wasn't like a mesh or a screen um most of the water ended up pooling on top of the cover um yeah this should be a stretch cover that water runs through okay yeah taunt cover when you look at it like you can almost like a kid could walk across it you know a sag in but it's a water runs through it so so just to summarize this and you know I don't I don't mean to beat the horse but just trying to get clarity is it your representation that the the water running off to the neighbors's property as it stands now would actually be less when there's a covered pool and a seepage pit on your property that that actually would reduce the runoff to the neighbor's property that is correct and and the removal of the of the patios will also help reduce the runoff as well okay thank you any comments from any of our design professionals Mr Barons Mr CA I'll add um just a few just to reiterate a few points uh mostly from a numbers pers perspective and and just you know again there's there's the one variance for improved lock coverage River Edge counts uh you know the body of the pool as coverage some towns do some towns don't there's a whole there's debates about that Every Which Way but in any event we count it but again from a numbers perspective if just looking at what you including the house and basically what's in front of the house you you end up at 31.4% so again that gives you about 3.6% in the backyard that translates to an extra 396 uh square feet that would get them to 35% as of right so there is again there's a little bit of a buffer and then so essentially the additional four or five% that they're requesting is essentially the body of the pool I'll ask the applicant's uh engineer to confirm but but again I think he you know did a decent job articul or itemizing the various uh coverage aspects of this so uh I mean you know from a number standpoint that's where they are again they uh they still have a little wiggle room in the back as of right and then it's it's the body of of the pool I don't know uh you know with the topography uh of the property if there's any way to you know provide any additional drainage solutions to help out the neighbor to uh we'll call it the left at 250 um again I'll leave that to the engineer but uh you know again from a planning point from a a number standpoint that's those are the the facts so let's confirm a number if we would to approve this application what would the percentage be the improve lot coverage uh um I'm looking up whatever the plan says that it's like 39.9 39.9 right I didn't hear it I didn't hear that number repeat that number please 39 it's 39.9 and as um Mr Baron said the pool and the coping makes up 5% of that number okay okay any further comments Mr C you have any comments um and again just again for clarity and for the record in Riveredge the pool even though it sounds like a great argument the pool counts as impervious so whether there's a free board 5 in 6 in 7 in 8 in it doesn't matter so in this case if I got the numbers correct between the pool and the coping 560 square feet 560 um the apron 320 and the pool equipment uh 20 which adds up to roughly 900 square feet if I'm if I have that correctly Mr Mallen if you want to just check that number and and yeah 900 exactly with the old rules rule ofon roughly 1.8 gallons for every square foot now with the new storms and the new rules times that number by by a little bit more so you're almost around two and a half to three gallons for every square foot so that's what they're going to have to put in as far as additional drainage and again if the original patios were not part of the original project which is what we heard tonight then he then he needs to then can hold all of that or detain all of that PR to go to his impact his neighbor also because of the new rules they have to do what's called a mounting analysis to make sure that if you inject the water into the ground it doesn't raise the groundwater which could then impact the neighbors to the left to right and the back um so all all of these things have to come into effect under the the new regulations thank you Mr Casa you are welcome all right before we get to a motion let's let's build a motion here well I do have a question you know what Mr chairman just one other thing for clarity too because I think this came up when I would say for the past quite few years now and as built has to be provided to the building department and that as built gets reviewed by Tom Steve myself we review it for soil movement Tom would do it for the zoning uh and probably Steve in the same respect so once he gets his CE you have an asilt of what was done there if he comes in later and starts placing the pavement uh the the pavers down guess what you can see this that it's different from the original application that would have been caught immediately also with the Advent of Google Earth it's amazing when you click on those little Arial and you go back in time I could probably tell you probably when the work was done if we want to report back to the board at the next meeting and maybe tomorrow morning when I get we'll do that if it's if it's necessary but when you click those little those little dates on the bottom of the photos you can almost tell when it was done when it was sealed and if there was any work done after that fact thank you Mr Kasha you are welcome okay Arabia yes before before we go to a motion do you want to make any final comments well if we remove the coping around the pool it brings us to what is the um the percentage like uh the the apron around the pool you remove the apron I believe it brings it to 37 37% there you which I would be fine with I would be I'd be grateful for that uh it's for me I can do it like a California style pool with grass around it okay that's it final comments all right all right let's look at a motion um the motion would be if the pool is approved I need a motion if the pool is approved at 39.4% impervious lack coverage would not be exceeded I think it's Mr chairman I think it's now 37% yes is that correct 37 okay is it 37 even or 37.4 37 even okay 37.0 okay so 37% improved lot coverage um would would Prevail and Mr Ker's comment engineer caser engineering comments would also be incorporated if for some reason this motion fails then the applicant uh will return the uh improved black coverage to 35% all right now with that understanding um I'll call for a board member to incorporate that into a motion I'll make that motion for um block 9006 lot 26 to approve impervious lot coverage of 37% uh total impervious coverage I don't think we need to really add anything to that um that would be 37% impervious lack coverage and that the applicant will comply with the engineering comments um and reports regarding drainage installation of seepage pits and the removal of the patios okay perf yeah the patio what to come out to get to that number so second okay now we got it we got to have a second part to this uh motion uh if the motion does not for approval does not um pass then the applicant will return the uh total impervious lack coverage to 35.0% does that have to be part of this because that would just be what he would need to do I would imagine well let's make sure it happens I will do whatever you want me to do thank you okay we have a second on that motion I'm I'm just a little confused because if we if we vote on this motion we're voting for one outcome but we're also saying if the motion doesn't pass there'll be another outcome so I don't know how we vote for that Mr merman um I think we should vote on the affirmative motion that was presented um by Mr Gibbons and then if it does not pass we'll just confirm on the record um those those steps okay I'll take Council I'll take council's advice all right so we have a mo we have a motion do we have a second second yes thank you okay all right um Marina okay you want to do a roll call yes thank you Mr Mayor come back to me please okay um Miss Boland yes Mr merman no Mr feffer yes councilman glass yes Mr gibons yes and Mr Mayor I have issues with this uh let me ask you this Miss dley if I abstain does the motion fail no I I I I you know want to make every effort to you know help our residents as much as I can um but we have a flooding problem River Edge and we just spent millions of dollars with um trying to deal with the flooding of Vorhees and at uh at Memorial Park um um putting in retentions U digging up roads putting in bypass pipes in addition to that um the weather is becoming more intense not less intense I I cannot in good conscience vote Yes on this um but what I will do is upate okay abstain the motion passes okay thank you very much thank you you all are welcome to come over anytime you want except me just call me on my phone and you come in very my kids will be very happy look it's not something I ever thought I would do I grew up with a pool this is for my children if it was up to me I work all the time but I really thank you very much and and I do thank you I want to say I tried to come here honestly like show you what I did back there I didn't try to hide it from you because I knew that I was going to get beat up over it but I did try to just be honest with all of you thank you okay all right thank you thank you move on to the next application which is uh old business yes and Mr mer we do have a member of the public that's raising their hand if if you want to just type in the chat your question I can answer it off the side but there's no public comment period right now okay we can continue okay next business to come before the board is old business that's Cassie and Tam joury which is 429 Windsor Road Block 809 lot 25 this uh this application has been carried from January 10th 24 and February 14 24 the uh proposed renovation to dwelling patio and pool and driveway extension uh a rebuild on the existing foundation and air2 story Edition which requires variance relief okay is there anybody representative applicant I believe the applicant is here yes and I also have my engineer uh Tom donu and my architect Mike cappo okay all right and for the record um the applicant and Mr cappo were previously sworn at the January 10th meeting and are still under oath today but um the applicants engineer was not present so I'll swear him and now so if you please raise your right hand you s affirm that that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth truth I do please state your name spell your last name and provide your address for the Thomas Donahue d n o h 210 Summit Avenue Montvale New Jersey 07645 thank you and could you provide the board with some background on your experience and lure sure um I have a bachelor's of Science and civil engineering from the uh New Jersey Institute of Technology I'm a licensed engineer in state of New Jersey and New York and I have over 35 years of experience uh preparing site plans and subdivisions and I've testified uh before a 100 planning boards in northern New Jersey Mr merman would you accept this ex yes yes yes we'll accept this where where your your credentials are in good order in good standing correct yes they are thank you my license is in good standing great thank you will accept your credentials all right now this this is a uh application that's before us it included a pool we had uh you heard previous comments from the board and now we're going over a resubmit where you took into account the board's comments and revised your drawing and site plan one of the major items is you did eliminate your proposed swimming pool so so I'll let you I'll let you carry forth uh with your presentation thank you um board members um I'll start off and then um of course if there's any questions uh uh for my engineer and architect they can answer the specifics but uh we heard the board's uh concerns and comments back in January um I think the biggest concern was um the uh first floor room on the first floor was too big and that it was uh very close to the neighbors so we went back to the drawing board and we decreased the size of the room uh on the first floor and hence we uh made the right side of the house actually smaller so uh to have a um uh an increased right yard uh right side yard setback uh in addition uh we also remove the pool uh with the smaller room and smaller right side uh and a smaller patio uh our original coverage of 45.5 was too high so now it is now at 38.6 which I think the board was comfortable with something uh 40% or less uh so those are the major revisions and we hope um you Rec reconsider and see our efforts in trying to address the board's comments but um Mike or or Tom or if you have questions they can answer that okay um board board members have any questions or comments for the applicant at this point and we'll start with uh Miss Bolan um my only question is are you planning on keeping the existing walkway to uh on along the side of the the dwelling um the one that on the left side get from the backyard yes I think we're not touching that that is um uh that it was it was there before and we're not touching that side is it something that you need that you use um I mean we we use both sides we don't have a preference that's my only question whether if if you were to reduce it at all would could could you take out that sidewalk um I I don't think we would have a problem with that if that needs to be taken out sure okay that's that's my only question s what was the which walkway are you disc to the left of the house it's it's an existing walkway to the left of the House of the garage right yes yes yes because an 18t driveway is is a good size and but the side walk I I feel you it's something you if you don't use it you could you could get rid of it Miss ban I think that I think that sidewalk is existing and um Mr um Mr Baron pointed out the last time that uh it would it's substandard for clearance from the property line and I believe if it was to stay we would need a waiver of some kind but it having visited a site it looks like that is a that would be a main ottery or walkway or access to the rear yard along that side there's no other right now there's no other way to get from the street directly to the rear yard I I I think it would be um useful for it to remain okay all right um Mr feffer you have any comments uh for the applicant at this point no I do not thank you okay councilman BL do you have any comments on the revise drawings at this I don't thank you I don't good um Mr Gibbons uh no real I just wanted to make a comment that I you know appreciate you going back and you know reviewing the comments that we had and and coming up with a more reasonable uh plan and it's a much more reasonable plan that makes more sense um you know and hopefully meets the needs that you have for your property um and and I would agree with Mr merman I think it seems like that side walkway it might be an area that you actually use um you know if that is an area to go you know to get to the backyard maybe something you want to keep um but you know with that being said we appreciate you listening to our concerns and uh and addressing them that's it thank you mayor Mr Mayor any I'm good Mr merman okay thank you um my comments are I'm very glad and appreciative that you went back and revise your plans if they carefully listening to the uh board's uh input the last time um and I think it'll work out quite well I would like to hear any comments from the uh from the uh professionals at this point Mr Baron any ref I'll just um uh review the the compliance aspects of it so there there's three technical variances being requested one as was discussed pertains to that existing uh sidew walkway where a minimum two foot setbacks required again that's an existing condition they did uh we'll call narrow down the footprint of the house to increase the sidey setback on the Westerly side of the house um so now it has a a single compliant sidey yard setback where the um it's now 7.5 feet but on the other side there's a non-conforming so when you add the two together it's less than the uh minimum required combined sidey yard setback and again where the existing non-conformity is on the we call the left side of the house it's a one-story garage and it complies on the right side where they have the two-story Edition then beyond that the third variance pertains to the improved lock C coverage where the current proposal is 38.6% so those are the variances being requested okay at this point um the applicant has nothing to uh present further um we will go out to public comments no further comments okay so can I get a motion in a second to go for public comments I moved thank you R second it thank you okay all right I I do not see anyone in the public at this all right so we are good to go we can close so no public comments correct correct okay so let's have a motion to close it to the public I moved thank you all right I all in favor I hi that was coordinat we're working with you Mr merman all right so are there any additional comments from the applicant at this point not hearing any um Mr Mr Casa do you have any comments just the uh again we did a letter on this and a review I wasn't at the last meeting but I from my understanding it's the the plans have been revised excuse me they still have to do obviously seepage pits drainage soils make sure the soils can accept it and if they have to increase the size of anything then then so on and so forth then we can deal with that also through the soil moving permit that'll be required if this is approved thank you you're welcome okay um Mr Barons I'll give you one last shot I I have nothing to add at this point Mr M thank you um okay okay Mr merman I'll make a motion if you're H open to it I'm open to it and remember I that n that left side left side Sidewalk requires a variance for its Uh current uh location yes so I would make a motion for Block 809 Lot 25 uh to approve the three variances one for the side Sidewalk uh the impervious coverage to be allowed at 38.6% and the total side setback uh variants to be approved um and that along with any suggestions or requirements uh from our town engineer okay is there a second second thank you all right I guess we can take a roll call yes thank you Mr Mayor yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr peer yes councilman glass yes Mr gibons yes okay the motion passes wonderful okay congratulations thank you very much thank you thank you good luck enjoy enjoy your new backyard enjoy thank you and you guys can come over too thank you we're down to uh any comments for board members if they want to uh present anything at this time I would just like to again say that every time we have these difficult um meetings it all comes down to the need to amend our land use board um our ordinance regarding land use board and I would again hope that uh Chris and you Mr merman can bring about a special meeting so that this land use board hopefully can recommend um my suggestion or some version of my suggestion so that we would in the future uh have a less of these U difficult meetings Okay um I'll work with Chris on it I think part of that is kind compiling um a list of the issues that we've got to look at um and I think a major one that Still Remains What is outside what you're referring to is our sign ordinance I think that requires um import with our burrow planners it's just going to be a new ordinance I think that's true I know that I was working with Mr D Roa um we had a I will say which we had a business that did an LED sign we have an ordinance against neon signs sign was incredibly bright but it's not a neon sign it was also a scrolling sign so uh Mr Jose uh um spoke to me about it and I we and uh so the if the scrolling could stop the sign could stay but I would have assumed I assume that the original ordinance against neonlights came about because of um their brightness or the the way they they that board and that Council thought the way they um uh illuminated the property so um signage is a problem I I I regularly get emails from residents about signage I pass them on to Mr D Roa uh and he's working very very hard uh on that but it would be better if we could uh update our signage ordinance and but I would I will not bring this before the council just as I will not bring uh my suggestion before for the council until this board weighs in okay very good I hear you um there's a lot of work there um and we had some committee assignments that going to have to be uh updated and I'll work with Chris on that just to mention it to him uh Mr merman just kind of on that front I just you know I I think we should be discussing too and I think it's part part of the the ongoing um conversations I think we need to have is you know how how how do we feel about you know some sort of uh allowance for the pools um Andor I don't know I don't know the right word but is less impervious materials you know that paving materials that are less obtrusive at least explore those options if it's something that we want to address um you know do you get an allowance if it's a pool you know for a certain extent you know I know other towns do things like that I think it's something we should at least discuss as a board if we are open to those things and if if that actually helps um you know do those things help with water problems I I believe the mayor off offered a suggestion to be looked at um from an ordinance standpoint of U of of pools or rear yards exceeding the 35% it was particularly aiming at pools if I recall um I've got part of it written down from minutes and um I guess we're gonna have to look at that also uh there's a lot to be done there let's put it that way a lot and and yeah and the sum is coming and I'm not so certain we're going to be able to gather people uh to do it but but Mr mer I I'll work with Chris on it this is my issue we this happened last year it happened the year before that it's happened my four years as mayor there's so much to do and it never gets done and then the summer comes and then we're back to a busy so I would ask that you and Mr clyn uh not try to do this as a whole but do this in parts yes let's let's look at my suggestion and maybe separate it from the signage and then let's have a discussion about that even if we do it at the end of the meeting because all we have to do is move a suggestion that this body feels is appropriate to the council and then the council takes over and then if you want to do another meeting or another uh ending see we're ending right now at 924 or we we finished our business at like like um I think we finished it at 910 at this point and then so not hold it all up until we have all of it let's let's take it in pieces because we don't ever get anything done in this area am I wrong you're absolutely this sign just for sign just as an example signage has been hanging there before you became mayor good so so but what let me let me elaborate on a point that you just made yeah Ma maybe we should consider a lotting a period of time at the end of each meeting whether it be a half hour or 45 minutes Dev voted to the special needs call I would think I would have no problem with that I don't know if the rest of the body would have a problem with that but I very firmly hope that you and Mr Casten can consider not doing this as a whole but in pieces corre let's send a recommend if we want to send a recommendation each meeting to the council for consideration that would get the ball rolling and if we could deal with the backyard issue and first because that's what's causing the water problems and as I said we've spent millions of dollars just in the last uh two years um with the Vorhees and uh and Kensington and Manning Corrections that we were doing on the paper street that also helped with Memorial Park and then we had to run additional lines uh Mr Costa can speak to this Mr Costa how much did do you remember how much we spent just on engine the total cost or the ballpark I wish I I should know the number off the top of my head mayor is it three million no I don't think it was that high I don't believe it was that high so between two and three the good news the good good news for me is thats to work it's working so my insurance compan so far is off the hook um so that's the good news it's it's definitely SE it was a large storm between since it's been finished and uh and today and it's it's working work and so you know I I just ask for this body to prioritize this issue above all else and then let's leave time or if time is available at the end of each meeting to talk about the other issues that would be great but um something is better than nothing well I mean that should be easy to again if you if you break it down like I agree with you mayor break it down one by one what's the biggest priority if sign is the biggest priority do the sign first do the backyard second I don't think the sign is the biggest priority because we're not spending billions of dollars on signs the only the only thing I could say I'll tell you what's interesting there's more application for pool since Co prior to that I probably um approved I don't know I can't even remember how many to remove pools so why that's changed and I have a feeling as time goes on and when people see the expense the maintenance uh the people that all of a sudden come over to their homes it'll reverse back to the old thing and get rid of them yes but that's not the only problem Mr Costa we also have all the patios going in and all the double driveways and I understand the need for this and I I don't I don't object to this but um you know my responsibility and councilman glass's responsibility and the others is to you know is to deal with the town as a whole and the town at the whole is getting wetter and people's when when I mean people on Vorhees avenues for instance on a two or three times a year they're roads would flood to the point that a car would be considered a loss not a repair if they did not know during the summer that there was going to be a flash storm a 45 minute rainstorm sometimes it was even less that would raise the water level to the point that the car would be a complete loss if they had so I had to start parking at the edges of the block plus their basements were regularly getting flooded right now the storm drain system is Costa it did work until the weather changed the weather has changed and now we have the water issues and I think if we don't and the reason I want to make this the priority is because Builders are going to build to the maximum uh percentage and hey you can't blame a businessman for making a good Buck I I certainly don't uh begrudge them the what they're doing but it's bad for the town and so I would like it if within the next two or three meetings we at least discussed and made a recommendation to the Council on this issue please and Mr May and excuse me if I missed it or I haven't seen it have is there something that official or not official but it did you send something to Mr castlin that we maybe didn't get or because I'm not 100% sure what you're asking I did I I created uh some language um I believe it was uh that that uh of the 35% I believe I said five or 4% would be reserved for uh backyard patios pools um and so it if if we rewrote the ordinance that way and if the ordinance if passes muster through Miss tinley's office and Miss sttinley then what we would do is when Builders come in they would say okay I can't build to 30 5% I can only build to 30 or 31% because I have to save four or 5% to uh for for the backyard so now in order to make I'm a good Builder I'm a good businessman or woman forgive me for being sexist um I would now include a pool or a patio in the backyard so that um back or side yard because you know those Corner lots have those issues use um and language could be put in backyard unless it's a corner lot and then it would be a back or side yard and so uh we would not have as many people coming who want to get to 38 39 40% and we would not have we would not be exasperating a flooding problem in our town that's fantastic and I love the idea and I know we've we've discussed that and I think that's something we should definitely be implementing yeah um I know a few years ago we had us we had a committee that discussed some other things pool above ground versus INR and there were some suggestions made it's got to be three or four years ago um and we've done nothing no and I think that we that that or signage should come in second and the other one I'm not suggesting anything goes in front of it I'm just saying there's other there's other things that we've talked about and and I'm completely for what you just said uh because we're seeing it entirely too often um you know and obviously I see it in my business um you know that we need to stop the the overdevelopment of houses where the where the people have no backyard so I'm 100% behind that um you know but I just just adding on to that that there are other things that we had mentioned years in the years past that have not been addressed here um as well so I can I'm sorry I apologize so if everyone's in agreement then I hope that miss sttinley Mr Baron Mr Costa and Mr dekin you might work with uh Mr merman and Mr kastyn so that something reasonable can be bought brought before this body either at the next meeting or the meeting after that or if it must be the third meeting but uh soon please I beg yes understood thank you Mr Costa no the only thing I was going to say I mean many years ago and I think I'm pretty sure dick was was probably part of those meetings talked about F yes and there were quite a few meetings a lot of discussion and then it kind of died on the vine but if you really want to limit that's that's the vehicle to limit because if you go over the the F it becomes a d variance which approves everything gets harder uh for the board to approve a d variance it's harder for the applicant to try to get that maybe we revisit that or look at that again why don't we bring both of them to the body within the next one two or three meetings okay and then if you could just circulate with the draft I guess whatever draft it was or it was just a oneline piece of language uh Mr merman I think I also sent it to you um and I think I sent it to you Miss sttinley so miss dley if you could if you if you do have a copy of that if you could send that to everyone that would be great yes I will thank you and I'm not saying we have to go with my idea I just want a idea to be approved and sent to the council before we get to the summer well we'll I'll get with Chris and we'll certainly get started on it appreciate it I'm really very grateful thank you all right any other business come before the board tonight all right we'll take a motion to Jen so move second maybe second all right all in favor hi good night night everyone thank you thank you all thank you good night