all right let's call the meeting to order it's now 7:33 PM good evening all today is July 10 2024 this is the meeting of the municipal L use Board of burough River Edge this meeting of the municipal Lan use Board of the burough River Edge is being held remotely and recorded via Zoom due to burough council chambers unavailability and is in compliance with the provisions of the open public meetings act and Associated regulations notice of this remote meeting was published in the Bergen Record posted on the front doors of burl Hall and posted on the Burrow's website the notice included the dial in and login information necessary for public participation and access to this meeting remotely copy of the agenda for this meeting was made available on the Burrow's website near the posting of the meeting notice and included the dial in and login information during the public comment period of this meeting if you would like to make a public comment please press the raise hand button on Zoom or dial 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 6 on your telephone keypad you must state your name and address clearly prior to making a public comment with that I'll turn over to miss steinley good evening if you call the RO please hello thank you Mr Mayor here Mr kastyn here miss Boland here Mr merman here Mr feffer here Mr cig is absent at the moment Mr Keno here councilman glass here Mr Gibbons is also absent at the moment and Mr bed is excused tonight um also present Jason Flores um from our board Engineers office and our zoning officer Mr dkin okay thank you very much uh as a matter of housekeeping hopefully we won't get that far but uh we're going to have a 9:30 pm curfew this evening uh with that the first item on our agenda this evening is approval of minutes from our June 26 2024 meeting uh while we did get a draft set of minutes uh circulated earlier today I'm actually going to uh have that uh carried to our next meeting to give the board a chance to uh not only review them but also uh they need to be supplemented there apparently was some audio um that may have been garbled and that will be cleared up in a supplement to the draft that was circulated today and uh with that being the case I think we will uh move that to our meeting on the 24th so moving along uh we do not have the memorialization available for for the uh mol application so we'll proceed into completeness review uh the applicant is U Carmelo and Kong Vasquez the property is 792 Park Avenue this is block 213 Lot 21 application for proposed above ground pool exceeding maximum coverage improved loot coverage um and other nonconformities Miss steinley yes thank you so I reviewed the proofs submitted by the applicant prior to this meeting and found them to be sufficient for the board to have jurisdiction over the application tonight okay thank you uh Mr dein uh would you like me to um give a synopsis of what what this is about or you wanted to uh take care of it uh you know so we're going to be starting is this new business this is completeness completeness okay um so do you want me to explain this is the first one I've taken over uh from Tom um and uh when I did the um calculations uh they were different from Tom Tom was giving me uh some input uh in what he did um and the lot um is um is over on building coverage and lot coverage uh it's pre-existing it's been there for a while I don't know if some of those uh you know improvements like the decks and things in patios uh were approved I have no record of that because we don't have the block and lot records uh uh in the office um but basically it's a you know it's a it's a it's a mug ground swimming pool it's not you know that that major a deal the issue I had and I wanted clarification on uh was a the code um section 4 46-15 with maximum Improvement coverage um there's a there's an exception in there that and I didn't understand that where the existing driveway extends to a to a garage located at the rear of the lot the paved area from the front of the dwelling to the front of the garage shall not be included in the calculations um so that I didn't understand I didn't know why that was there um you know it's a impervious coverage and um it's a it's a question that I want to is that something that needed to be changed or is it something that I'm missing that uh the burrow is looking to keep why don't we hold that question for now um if you if if there's anything from your perspective that uh would hold us back from deeming the application complete at this point from based on the I think I think that would be the only one um all the other information has been submitt and uh I think the board has a good uh knowledge of the of the property okay thank you sir Mr Flores uh good evening uh good evening everybody uh good evening so our office review uh the cage uh for the proposed Improvement prepared by the applicant um we also review the property survey uh prepared by Mr cner Associates uh the letter of denial from Mr dekins and and you know the uh the survey and some photos that the applicant uh you know submitted with the application uh we review all Doc all all those documents and we found them to be sufficient um you know for the board to you know for the application to proceed tonight okay thank you sir questions from the board on completeness okay there being none I'll look for a motion on the applications deem it complete don't move all right I'm gonna I'm gonna give Mr Keno the First on that and the second for Mr Murman all right all right Mr Mayor yes Mr caslin yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr faffer yes Mr Keno yes and Council glass oh I didn't I'm sorry councilman I didn't hear you I said yes can you hear me now yes thank you all right the motion passes okay thank you everyone our next item under completeness this evening the applicant is JNL hunt property is 216 doorchester Road this is block 708 lot 20 application for a proposed twostory Edition one story Edition front covered porch patio and expansion of driveway uh looking for variance relief for lock coverage and improve lock coverage Miss stying yes thank you um I did review the proof submitted by the applicant prior to this meeting and found them to be sufficient for the board to hear the application tonight okay thank you Mr dekin okay I got the gist of this now um yes the information that's been submitted I think it's uh uh ample and sufficient toh proceed okay thank you Mr Flores like I said before uh all the information provided is sufficient for the board to proceed with the application okay thank you comments from the board questions from the board as to completeness okay there being none I'll look for a motion to deem the application complete don't move I got first from Mr feffer is there a second second thank you miss bowan all right Mr Mayor yes Mr klin yes Miss Boland yes Mr marman yes Mr feffer yes Mr kigo yes councilman glass yes all right the motion passes okay thank you very much we're going to move now into the new business section on our agenda the first application we're going to hear this evening is Carmelo and Kong Vasquez the property is 792 Park Avenue lock 213 loot 21 uh seeking um variance for on above ground po exceeds maximum coverage believe the applicant is here this evening good good evening evening hi hello I'll hop oh I'm sorry no that's okay I was just gonna ask if is there anyone else appearing with you this evening or just you okay all right our our board attorney is going to to uh swear you so if you please raise your right hands do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth all right and please state your name and address for the the record vcas 792 Park Avenue River Edge New Jersey 07661 thank you carelo Vasquez 792 Park Avenue River Edge New Jersey 07661 thank you okay good evening so if you can for the board would you provide us uh with a brief summary of um what it is you're intending to do and uh what looking for uh relief from the board this evening um so we are proposing to install an oval above ground pool it's uh 12 by 20 and um I'm not sure if you're able to tell from the pictures but our backyard is sort of like tiered we have three levels and so the pool would go at the um the bottom level which is um uh behind the train station so we live behind the River Edge train station um and when we um submitted a permit um for the town I guess it's been two years now um we found out that we would be going over um the maximum lot coverage and so um it it's taken a while for us to um get the paperwork ready because we had to get a new survey done um and then this other ordinance we found about the driveway came into play and then there was a transition from um Tom to Steve and so there's a lot of paperwork um that happened um in the past uh couple years but we're now um applying for uh the land news forward hearing um to sort of understand what what that ruling is and um what um percentages will be over um for the variance request oh and then so the other thing too is um we we are proposing to remove our we have a two-tier deck as well that came with the house and the wood is rotting on the deck and so we needed to replace that anyway so um to sort of relieve the um percentage uh we are proposing to um remove the second tier of the deck which isn't being utilized anyway and there are two pieces of concrete three pieces of concrete um the second level that is just kind of randomly placed and so um that is also being removed which would alleviate the um the variance and also for the record when we purchased in 2019 the house was as is so the deck was there was pre-existing and so was the concrete okay could you confirm which part of the deck it is that you're removing it's if you're looking if you're looking at the back of the house it's uh the the small portion on the right on the side of the house okay so on the drawing is okay so it's the smaller of the two decks marked on a plan that's that's the looks like it's got an X okay and and just what confirming the size of the pool is is is the pool size 12 x 20 still correct yes okay okay um let me turn to our professionals at this point um Mr dekin I'll start with you okay um yes you know I apologize to the applicants this has been going on for quite some time um you know with the midst of going between uh Tom and then to me and getting the prop proper documents uh but the one survey is indicating exactly what they want to do um it's all pre-existing loot coverages that were over um but again it's uh I'm going to say just an above ground pool um so it's not I don't think it's taking uh away or adding too much to to the property the fact that they're taking away um uh 3x3 uh they're going to remove the stairs uh on the deck and then a 9 by10 uh section of the deck is going to be removed uh for the concrete uh well again the deck it's a two foot by 12 foot uh reduction of the deck um there's no Arrow indicating that I think it's the uh the upper deck I guess I I I don't know um and then uh for the concrete it's a 10t x 11 uh removal of the concrete uh you know section that you can see uh xed uh and another three and a half by three and a half um concrete area that also has a next to it there's a slight arrow on that deck so I think they're just taking off a a portion of that of that deck area and that would uh you know really balance out what they're proposing to put um you know the the calculations for the pool um again this um doing the calculations they're all pre-existing coverages that are over um and I don't know how they got there so um I don't know how you would want to address that um but again this U section in the in the code in regards to uh permitting uh the um exception where existing driveways go from the front of the uh house to the front of the garage not being calculated uh in loot coverage I don't know whether you you want to um you know try to amend that in in the code or is there some something that are missing that uh you know the the burrow is looking uh to do for any detached garage that that is something that the burough has done in the past and and Tom Barons gave us I don't want to say a dissertation but a lesson about it a couple of years ago maybe three years ago there was an application on either popper or Myrtle Avenue and there was a detach garage and the same question came up and he talked to us about it uh and it had been discussed before and there I can't I can't remember all the reasons I think Tom baren is just going to have to like answer these questions because he's well versed in it uh but uh there were reasons and everybody at the time I recall agreed that it's something that we would want to keep so I think that calculation uh should be uh um considered here okay that's fine uh maybe uh in the future I mean I know that we were discussing things about storm water management uh and those sections uh that calculation uh that's a large uh large area to just eliminate um you know now that they have um permeable pavers and uh you know drainage uh in in the driveways and stuff not speaking about this application but uh in the future maybe the the the board would want to look at that differently and and just to add to that if I may um the code as it's written today is what is applicable to this application so the applicant will get the benefit of that reduction of impervious coverage from the front of the house to the front of the detached garage so that um coverage calcul coverage shouldn't be included in the calculation and I believe in Mr Costa's report it it clarified that good okay that's all I have chairman I think Mr chairman you just said something but you on mute so we didn't hear you thank you I how that happened Mr Flores if I can turn to you uh so like Mr dekin said uh regarding this ordinance about from 46-15 with a maximum uh you know improve FL coverage going from the frontage of the house to the detached garage uh it has been clarified so it's not going to be included and just to put it out for the record so the applicant is proposing to remove uh a combination between the deck and the concrete uh path of concrete P that they have in the back roughly an area of 245 Square fet uh the pool that they want to add the above ground pool that they want to add is 240 Square ft so it's balancing out and that's not taking consideration now uh you know the new ordin that is taking in place where you know if you have you know if your deck is uh open then you have 75% credit uh if the you know the above ground pool is you know is is because of the configuration of the lad that you really have big drop going from Park Avenue all the way to the back of the property um it's very hard to bring a Machinery in there so that's why I guess one of the reason why the applicant is proposing a race uh pool there and since whatever they're removing whatever they installing is balancing out I I I don't see any other comment that I I I don't see my recommendation for the board will be just some application that should be approved okay thank you sir let me turn to the board now uh questions um Miss Bolan I'll start with you um so my only question is uh so what is the proposed um coverage now is it the the existing 41.9% I think Mr Flores could answer that one yes so if we remove uh well we are going to remove that automatically so they are proposing a l coverage of uh 294 square feet which is roughly 35.8% that what they're proposing um however however if we take in consideration the new ordinance where they get credit for uh the deck and they get credit for uh uh for the deck they will be roughly uh 35.6% on the improved L coverage okay that that was it um I just as far as the driveway goes I know I was interested in that because I have the same situation I think the intent was to not penalize homeowners who have a detached garage in the rear yard and are are forced to have a long driveway that you wouldn't be penalized for coverage if we were to change it I would say maybe only for storm water management um but not for you know allowable coverage okay thank that's can I can I can I can I point can I point it out something else I I soest so I can put that out of the record um the existing uh the existing L coverage is roughly 14 uh 53 square feet you know uh so 1,453 Square ft uh they're proposing to remove 12 three ft of you know of deck which is counts as a l coverage if we take that deduction out of the existing L coverage they will be uh roughly at uh 13 uh 1,320 square feet which is going to be below 25% of what they're allow so that variance will will go away but they still have a variance of in Pro FL coverage for about like an extra 1% just just to put out of the record out of the record so just to confirm so what what's the improved lot coverage now being proposed the improved lot coverage being proposed is going to be uh 294 square feet and the lat coverage is going to be uh 1,320 Square ft so the improved lot coverage will be 35.8% proposed and the proposed lot coverage will be below 25 so it'll trying to do the math 24.1% 24.1 okay okay so that does away with the lock coverage variance okay very good uh moving along Mr feffer yes thank you um I don't I don't see anything controversial about this project but just to get it on the record um when you remove the conrete uh from below the deck do you have any intention of replacing the concrete with any kind of um material or just leaving it dirt or what what's the plan for that area so yeah the other half of that area is already grass and so we're just going to extend the grass okay that was my only question thank you thank you Mr Mayor based on the previous questions and the testimony from Mr Flores I have no questions okay thank you uh Mr counsilman sorry um I have no questions okay thank you Mr Keno uh no no questions the the project looks good and I think it's going to be an improvement um and you know again we're taking all these caseby case basis um so you know in this case I think it makes sense and especially given the location the storm water management um issues are different down there than they are in other parts of town so um you know I take that into consideration as well uh and I think this project uh should be allowed to go forth thank you okay thank you sir yeah Mr merman you're you're on better now there we we go yes okay I S some papers and hit it okay so I did get to Vis site today and um discussed with the applicant what was happening U for the record I would just like the applicant to um State uh if he looked at other options uh other than a pool there such as maybe joining the local Swim Club so we are we were part of the swim club um my we have an older daughter who is going to be uh 13 years old and she really doesn't want to go back to the swim club um we also have my mom that lives with us who's I won't say older because she'll get mad at me um uh she's young in heart uh but she is older and she doesn't really care for public spaces and she it's hard for her to come outside onto the deck because it's really hot right now so to have a pool that she can hang out with the kids would be really fun and having daughters we only have daughters we have no boys uh we kind of want to keep them home instead of going to other people's houses so okay fine very good um Mr chairman having visit this site having uh discussions with the applicant um I have no further questions and I think that it's my opinion I think that the reduction of a prior overage is to the benefit of the town okay thank you sir I just have just one question just for the record what's the what's the height of the the pool from the at grade what how high is the pool going up I think five or five feet I I believe it's four feet look it up okay the depth is 46 in just under four feet okay yeah very good okay that's I concur with the rest of the board I see no uh nothing objectionable about the uh about the application here um with that I uh let's open the open this up to public comment Miss steinley do we have anybody in the uh audience there are no members of the public okay so can we dis there no members of the public we can close that portion of okay very good all right uh at this time I'll move uh to the board for any final comments questions uh from either board or the professionals uh just a reminder that once they if they obain if they obtain approval they need to get uh permits uh to install the okay very good uh with that being said I will look to the board for a motion on the application please may I volunteer Mr chairman if you would Mr mer okay regarding the Valas uh application at 792 Park Avenue block 213 Lot 21 rivered regarding a uh installation of a above ground pool which which encompasses several removals uh of existing structure um it is noted that the lot coverage will be reduced below the permitted 25% therefore the previous um variance uh disappears is non-existent so we nearly have to address the improved lot coverage for the structures the allowable maximum allowable being 35% the um existing um I think we'll have to fill that in Mr Flores uh but the proposed uh improved lack coverage I believe uh it becomes 35.8% um when when the project is finished um subject to a review by the the number reviewed by Mr C's office Mr CER report did have several conditions in it um I believe one of them was submitting um new a new um site plan um that was uh delting all the removals a little bit clearer than was submitted with the application and Mr ca's office had a number of um that I think need to be report you're breaking up I'll let the report stand on its own okay okay just to confirm the applicant has no no no objection to to complying with the conditions in Mr Costa's report say again you you have no objections to the the complying with the conditions that are listed in the in the cost engineering report just about reting the site all of it's gonna be done and we'll update the site plan and submit it to the town okay very good all right so with that Mr merman's motion is there a second please second second wow I gotta give Miss bowling a second on that one okay Miss steinley when you're ready please thank you Mr Mayor yes Mr caslin yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr puffer yes Mr Keno yes councilman glass yes okay the motion passes great happy swimming congratulations enjoy best of luck we do want to say thank you very much it's been a long process um we really appreciate the time Stephen and Ed you you guys dealt with us and we apologize for a lot of it uh but we do appreciate the time that you guys took off for this uh it's been a long time coming get to go tell the girls so they can be really happy there's a lot of emails lot ofs we we appreciate your your appreciate your patience with the transitions too so best of luck thank you so much guys okay very good have a great evening all right moving along in our agenda under new business we're going to move now to our next application which is James and Lissa hunt property is 216 Dorchester Road Block 708 lot 20 a proposed twostory Edition one story Edition front covered porch patio and driveway expansion looking for variance relief uh for lock coverage and improve lock coverage uh I see the applicant is here good evening I'm I'm the architect too I'll be taking you through the plans as well okay great good evening sir uh even let's um get everybody sworn in all right if you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do I do I do all right and we'll start with Mr Hunt if you just please state your name and address for the record James Hunt 216 Dorchester Road River Edge New Jersey 07661 thank you uh Lisa hunt 26 Dorchester Road River Edge New Jersey 07661 all right and Mr Callahan please state your name um business address and provide the board some background on your qualifications even I know you've been before our board before but just that your license is up to date Etc sure yep Brian Callahan c l l a h an business address 40a Tillman Street Westwood New Jersey 07675 and I'm a licensed architect in New Jersey currently licensed um and have been before this board and in several boards throughout Bergen County for more than the last 20 years um member of the American Institute of AR ARs and certified by National Council of architectural registration boards as well and own practice since 02 okay thank you sir questions from the board as to Mr Callahan's qualifications all right there being none uh I will turn to the applicant this time and uh would ask you if you would for the benefit of the board if you could just summarize uh the your intentions as far as your proposed development good I I share the screen do you mind if I Mr chairman if I take that file meets thank you all right so I'm referencing a set of plans that were submitted uh to this for this application uh the date on these plans is March 26 2024 the A1 sheet depicts the survey and the site plan or not a site plan but the survey on which I've uh superimposed OS the proposed additions there are some uh important pre-existing non-conforming conditions with respect to this property uh it is currently 6,738 square feet where 7,500 is the minimum lot area it is also deficient in lot and width it's 60 feet wide where 75 feet is the minimum lot width uh there is also a um side yard setback that is deficient on the uh left side as you look at the floor plan or the um survey here we have 4.3 feet on that left side where we need uh six feet so we are proposing a two-story Edition at the rear flanked by a couple of one-story editions there is a covered deck in the back of the house now that would be demolished and this new addition would be in that general area we're also adding a 12x14 pad I know from previous applications that patios are important um and the we're seeking two variances one for lock coverage and one for improved lock coverage um and in my professional opinion they're both uh kind of small variances we have we're seeking 26.2% of lock coverage where 25% is the maximum allowable and uh we're going to end up at a 37% improved lot coverage where 35% is the maximum allowable and just to reiterate too we have this undersized lot and we're only a couple percentage points over the other uh couple other aspects of the improvements that we're proposing are covered porch in the front and also proposing to uh expand the driveway and with that we're not contemplating or not proposing a expansion of the curb cut but rather when you came into the driveway once you got past the property line we would like to widen that out uh as I go through the plans the next sheet depicts the foundation plan so we are proposing a full basement uh under the addition the first floor plan is depicted on the A3 sheet the walls that are shaded in are new so the new addition would contain a family room an office and a guest bedroom on the first floor there is a small kitchen in the back of the house now that would become a walk-in pantry and sort of circulation space into the new uh addition I would also say that even though we are uh deficient in lot width we are we are conforming with the S the new work is conforming with the sidey setbacks so we've we've sort of try to work it out so we don't we're not seeking relief from any any setbacks the uh next sheet depicts the second floor plan and you can see on the second floor plan the first floor roofs below so we're not uh th those are just one-story editions the second floor plan depicts the new primary Suite um we are sort of changing out there was a small bedroom I'm sure many of you familiar with this type of house there's a small bedroom in the top right corner now currently that's going to be converted to a laundry room and some closet space for for uh a new bedroom in the addition so at the end of the day we have four uh bedrooms and two bathrooms on the second floor subsequent sheet uh starts to depict the exterior elevations and we will be complying with Building height uh we're proposing a stone veneer Wes coat some uh standing seam metal roof uh shed roof and the roof over the covered porch as well and uh the sub A5 uh has the front and right side elevations and A6 depicts the rear and uh left side elevations So currently this is the left side elevation depicts the uh garage space and just to reiterate we would not be going over that space that is currently the wall That's only 4.3 feet from that left property line um so again just to uh reiterate we're here in my opinion because of the undersized lot and the narrowness of the lot and uh with that we are seeking those variances of 1.2% in lot coverage and 2% in improved lockage okay thank you Mr Callan let me turn to our professionals first Mr dukin um I have nothing else to say I think Mr call and hit it on the head uh he mentioned every uh item that is necessary and uh the undersized lot and the fact that the uh the existing uh is you know shy on the on the West Side um but his proposed addition complies with the uh setbacks uh and uh I think he's right it's 1.2% um and uh for the building coverage and 2% for the for the lot coverage okay thank you uh Mr Flores um I have a couple of questions for the for the architech uh before that I want to put out on the record that you know uh the violences that is being sick uh are just the light coverage and improv light coverage like Mr dekin said is 1.2% on the LA coverage for for for the dwelling itself is uh 2% on the uh improved L coverage um and I I for the patio for for the architect are you any particular material that the part is going to be in the back like regular papers environmental pavers uh right now regular pavers but that's I really hasn't been specified yet um I I suggesting like you know if you if you do environmental papers and you know you build it properly 21 Ines of a stone that will cover your uh you know instead of installing a cphp that will act as as your you know your um your small uh uh detention system over there so if you want to do environmental paper maybe your clients are up for installing environmental papers in that area that will be great um um so the increase on from the existing that's for the record from the existing um Imperial light coverage to the new proposed Imperial light coverage is an increased rough Le of uh 912 square feet and we need to do we need to mitigate that uh implementing like I said some cped uh of environmental papers you know with a lot of stun underneath uh uh all that can be taken care of uh during the uh soil movement permit uh but just want to be aware that some mitigation needs to happen here and some you know and part of that Mitigation Of of a stone Water Management you know you need to have to on testing to make sure it's going to percolate and you know proper you know you got to properly size uh the the CP or the environmental paper that you're going to install there um I have a quick question for you uh another question I didn't see no Building height so I just want to make sure that uh whenever you Pro if if the application gets B yes uh when at the end of the day when they provide a an as uh just to include a calculation on the ASV that would be great so so we know that you know the you know the building highight wasn't ex exceeded so Building height is shown here in the zoning chart on A1 and it's also uh shown on the uh exterior elevation on the A5 sheet uh the top drawing has a dimension on the left hand side that depicts the height of 28 feet okay 28 fet all right that's good so it's not going to exceed the existing height that is having there okay that's good that's good clarify all right so thank you this is a good clarification and and then the only thing I want to put out for the board and this is more like for you know for interpret so I have to put out on the record um the ordinance 46-41 uh regarding the off three parking uh is being met uh you know so you met the you know the Bor ordinance on the offre parking however on the uh on the rsis uh you know uh you you need a variance because you are required to have uh three of three parkings which you providing only two uh based on the number of veterans that that the dwelling has would the garage be a third uh well the garage and what what happen is the garage counts as a one and then whatever you have on the outside comes only as a one because you need to have 9 by 18 and you don't have so you will have to have a width of 36 feet so you don't have that right now so that's the small deviation so that that's something that the board need to take in consideration when they B uh uh on the I'm sorry could you say that again a width of what so so so so right now what's the width of the driveway or the proposed driveway um I'm going to say approximately 20 feet 20 feet and what's the length of it uh from the uh well before it widens out 30.8 feet that's the setback on the survey now from the front property line to the house and what's the what's the size of the of the garage inside of [Music] um I would say it's probably 10 by 18 you or take it's enough a small car Bas Bas on Bas on the scale which doesn't have a dimension I believe we we scale like 17 but if it's 18 just confirm if that if if it's 18 then you're going to be in compliance if it's less than 18 you're not going to be in compliance okay okay all right so you want to something that needs to be confirmed um other than that like when you do the soul movement applications you're going to be required to do some so uh because you're you're adding a basement correct to the addition okay so you're gonna you're going to be required to to provide some uh grading on some sort of small s some grad yeah engineering s plan showing uh you know showing the existing rating and showing how much Sol is being move just in order you know just to avoid any uh any issues uh after is being constructed that you guys raise the property without you know without approval or anything like that so um other than that I I don't have any other comments uh okay thank you thank Mr Flores let's turn to the board now uh for questions uh Mr fefer I'll start with you uh I don't have any questions at this time thank you okay thank you sir uh Mr Mayor no I I think the argument ment uh given that this undersiz lot and the 2% and I did some quick calculations and they may be incorrect but at 6,738 uh for the current size lot instead of the 7500 37% appears to me to be 24930 6 whereas if it was a standard size lot 35% would be 2,628 um we do have water concerns but I know that that Costa Associates will take care of that and so um I have no questions and I'm comfortable with this U this request okay thank you uh Miss poolan y I have nothing to add okay uh Mr Keno I'm good thanks okay uh councilman not not really Rel um directly related but are we where are we at with considering the modifications to the code with respect to this application the this application was submitted prior to the ordinance being adopted that changed the um requirements for maximum lot coverage and building coverage so we're still applying this application um has the benefit of the old version of the ordinance so you're saying the modifications don't apply to this application correct it it since the application was submitted before the ordinance was adopted um they the old requirements would still apply only applications that are submitted after the ordinance is adopted will have to comply with the new requirements that's it for me chairman thank you okay thank you councilman Mr merman yes I have a couple as usual um Mr Callahan um you did not show the location of your AC units I think we would like to see those on a roaring uh and you can tell us where they are now because there were certain areas of the parel that we kind of restrict them from right so I would say where they are now I'd have to ask the owners I'm not positive but I I know that I think we have plenty of room to put them in a conforming right location yeah all right so there's nothing there now we don't have Central Okay window units that's why that's why they're not showing um okay uh I have a couple of others and we're on this site plan um I'm gonna throw you a suggestion you currently have a concrete walkway on your left side of the dwelling that goes from the driveway to a shed what would happen if you remove that concrete driveway the concrete walkway and relocated your shed to the rear yard and the shed could be either tucked under the deck or I think if it's the same size shed or thereabouts um it could be more functional I thr it out for yeah there's no shed there's a it says frame shed but that's in Lot 21 that's not in our problem Oh that's oh I see that okay all right got it yes it was not clear if I can that's just that's just the walkway around this the side of the garage on that side that's there's nothing special would it still be needed under the current um uh layout yeah I think to just to walk you know that's we take our trash can down that sidewalk that's just you know how we walk around to the back of the house okay very good so you do not have a shed then no shed okay um could you um scroll up to your next drawing sure um actually I want to see before I go there I want to see the front elevation okay there um I see the window up top on the roof is is that an attic that's an attic that would not be habitable space okay there's no no Headroom not enough Headroom to make it habitable that's just for Aesthetics all right maybe air handloads or something okay um let's go down to your basement all right um okay you you have an alterate means of ESS from the basement you're showing in the upper right hand corner when I look at um your elevations it appears to be a Bilco hatch correct it's Bilco door Bilco I guess part of this question is for Mr dekin um is a b go hatch uh qualify qualify as a alternate means of ESS for safety because no it doesn't Okay that that was my whole point so I think you're going to have to Revis that uh eliminate the Bilco hatch and you might want to put in a uh a a regular um um basement exit with a a stair uh Mr merman um I I don't see anything there indicating that it's a bedroom it would be a bed it would be a bedroom area that would need two means of egress when they do those plans uh I usually ask for a notorized letter from the uh from the applicant that it won't be a bedroom area uh unless they meet those conditions well you have a very very large basement and right now there's only one means of egress and that's up the stairs and that meets the code in the state of New Jersey that's all that's need that's all it's need that might be very TR true but from a safety standpoint to me it's unacceptable can you put in an egress window [Music] somewhere egress windows are required in sleep sleeping rooms and there is no sleeping room in this basement okay you you you're missing the point you're trapping people down there okay right now regardless of what the code say so the code is trapping people not me this that's the building code fine let's eliminate let's that's right let's eliminate that condition is there any way we can eliminate that condition regardless of trapping or un trapping of the code I'm thinking of fire safety for the OCC occupant I'm thinking of fire safety as well and um the code which I have that's what I rely on for fire safety we can't say the code doesn't exist we can't create new conditions for the code we can't put the onus on this homeowner to build something that code doesn't require so your answer is you refuse to do it my answer is the plans meet the code my answer is people are going to get trapped there okay you're not going to get my vote if you don't have an ultimate means of act agress okay let's put that right on the table Mr merman is that a suggestion it's a it's not a threat it's the way I'm looking at it right now so Mr so if I might chime in would the applicant agree to comply with Mr dekins requirement to obtain the notorized letter that the area won't be a bedroom area and we can put that condition in the in the application we have absolutely no issue doing that it's not going to be a bedroom it's a basement uh let me dwell on there I don't know um um I I don't feel that I'm adequately protecting the the public saf um physical safety a letter is nice but but it's still going to possibly result in a loss of life um all right let's let's move on uh let's see what else I add [Music] here is um any I think you stated and testified um that there is no um uh which is the I no living space no um occupancy no sleeping in the basement area is that is that what what I what I heard yeah the the owner testified to that the owner testified that he would submit a letter saying that there would be no sleeping rooms in the basement a few seconds ago H all right let's let's move on here I think those are the questions I have the comments I have and I still feel very strongly about that bco hatch and um that that I think that's all I have Mr chairman okay thank you Mr M styley we don't have anyone in the uh in the audience do we uh no there are no members of the public okay um there being no members of the public present we will dispense with the need to open for public comment um I have no comments uh beyond the items that have already been raised by the various members of the board uh with that I will uh ask for any further comments or questions from either the board or the professionals okay there being none I will look for a motion on this application please once again Mr chairman permit me to attempt um the lock coverage permissible is 25% um and the proposed is going to result in 26.2 I believe Mr Flores correct me if if needed the improved lack coverage is permitted 35% and if I heard Mr flor's Right we oppos is about 37% and what was the final decision on on the U final decision on the parking variants was there one required or not I know you went back and forth he is going to confirm that the width meets uh um the the width meet the width of the garage meets 18 feet that's all so why don't we just grant them a why don't we just grant them a parking variance right now yeah and if it's not necessary then it will BEC okay very good right um I will also know that the cost to report at many um conditions and uh to to be met and I'll automatically incorporate those in into the into the uh motion one second now is there anything else that I missed uh just to confirm with the applicant they're they're okay complying with the the the conditions referenced in cost engineering report um yes okay um and you you're proposing to submit a letter uh regarding uh the safety uh with that b go hatch can you was that a question yes I think the so uh the the the they would be look the the architect would have to subm submit a letter that's we're find submitting the letter and and to be perfectly honest with you you know I I appreciate your your concern for the safety in the basement and um you know being that it's it's not required by code I don't see that we should be held to it but it is something that I think we would looking at and um I appreciate your concern thank you okay so so just to be clear the letter is just going to state that the basement will not be used for for sleeping purposes yep and and if it does become a bedroom area then you will have to comply with the code understood um okay and that okay I hear you um um how can we kind of clarify that into this can we make it a deed requirement or something I would suggest re putting a note in the plans that it won't be a bedroom area but if it does be or it's not intended to be a bedroom area but if it does then it will be compant so Mr Callahan you heard that you will alter the basement uh floor plan accordingly is is that acceptable yes sir yep okay um I believe that's all I have Mr chairman okay thank you sir there a second for the motion please second thank you Mr peer M dley when you're ready all right thank you Mr Mayor yes Mr kln yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman with regret on the safety yes Mr feffer yes Mr kigo yes councilman glass yes all right the motion passes okay thank you everyone congratulations best of luck Mr chairman best of luck with your project congratulations Mr Mrs hun thank you appreciate it thank you everybody a great evening uh with that we've reached the end of our agenda this evening unless anyone on the board has anything to discuss I do who who was the second on that motion um this Mr last one Mr Feer Mr feffer oh thank you okay uh just a reminder we do have a meeting on for the 24th so we will be uh we have a couple of applications being heard that evening um but we do have um we are cancelling our August the first August meeting and we'll reconvene again uh later in the month the second M Mr chairman forgive me if this was discussed I just can't remember it are we going over these ordinances like this this issue that Mr merman raised tonight is a fair issue you know I think we addressed it right this evening but if there's a safety issue that you know one of our professionals here on the land use board has addressed we may need to address the ordinances and it's not us obviously the council has to address them but it's for us to send some of these you know issues to the council and say these are concerns we have and we should be probably like going over the entire uh ordinance um you know all all our ordinances with that in mind for us to give comments and you know certainly use Mr merman's knowledge uh and and experience and everybody else Miss bowan etc etc I I don't have that experience but you know well it's a fair point but m styley i see you not your head is it is it a municipal code or is it a state construction code issue no it it it's not a local um ordinance it would be the state construction code and uniform fire code um which the burrow the burrow just adopts the the model ordinance State ordinance they don't have a say over the the changes of the I did not know that never mind I would draw my whatever this was no and certainly appreciate the the aspects you know bringing those things to people's attention maybe it's something they Overlook but as long as they're coom they're they're co- compliant well I mean now now we know that we don't have any choice that's the way it is that's the way it is anything further from anyone if if not I will look for a motion to adjourn so moved thank you Miss bowling there a second second thank you Mr f for all in favor hi any we stay adjourned at 8:40 PM good evening all thank you bye bye bye