03:59The meeting began with a discussion on the preliminary State Development and Redevelopment Plan. The board planner, Tom Behrens, outlined the importance of this update, emphasizing its focus on affordable housing—a topic not revisited by the state since 2001. Behrens highlighted that municipalities must collaborate with designated entities to draft new housing plans. This questionnaire, consisting of approximately eleven questions, demanded input from the board, particularly on listing the community’s top three land use planning goals and priorities.

12:38During the session, board members expressed concerns about their actual influence over the state plan, with one questioning, “how much say do we really have in this?” Behrens acknowledged the skepticism, noting that while local input was solicited, the state’s adoption of the plan might not heavily weigh those contributions. Despite this, another board member stressed the importance of documenting the board’s perspectives, reiterating their role as community representatives.

To streamline the process, a suggestion was made to employ a technological tool, such as Survey Monkey, to gather board members’ priorities. This approach would facilitate participation from absent members and ensure a comprehensive collection of viewpoints. The board agreed to draft responses and develop a survey for further discussion at the next meeting scheduled for April 9, allowing adequate time to prepare for the state’s December 2025 adoption deadline.

18:10Shifting focus to local matters, the board delved into the intricacies of revising swimming pool regulations. The proposed draft ordinance aimed to clarify definitions surrounding building area and coverage. A significant change involved explicitly excluding swimming pools from building coverage calculations while including them in lot and impervious coverage assessments. This change aimed to rectify previous amendments that conflicted with the board’s intentions.

47:18Further deliberations explored the treatment of accessory buildings and structures. It was confirmed that unroofed patios at natural grade would not count toward building coverage, while raised patios would be included. The board debated the criteria for classifying a patio as “raised,” considering the varying slopes of lots in River Edge.

The conversation also addressed the unified treatment of in-ground and above-ground pools. Board members questioned the rationale for differing regulations when both pool types serve similar functions. There was a consensus to treat both consistently.

Attention was given to height limitations on accessory buildings, particularly garages. The current cap of 15 feet prompted discussions about roof pitch, with suggestions to enforce a minimum pitch of 6 over 12 to maintain the community’s aesthetic standards. Concerns were raised about preventing garage space conversions into living quarters, aligning with existing codes prohibiting such transformations.

The board also reviewed limitations on accessory buildings occupying side or rear yard areas, proposing a 30% coverage limit and a cap of 150 square feet for roofed structures like sheds and detached garages. This adjustment aimed to balance the need for functional outdoor spaces with the prevention of excessively large structures.

53:02The meeting proceeded to the memorialization segment, where a resolution concerning Metropolitan Wholesale on Newbridge Road encountered no objections and was approved. Another resolution for Rosenbaum Yiva of North Jersey on Kmack Road included revisions for typographical errors and conditions like fence installation and landscaping enhancements. The board considered, but did not impose, a restriction on fence signage, noting that existing procedures required separate applications for signs.