Lisa you all Lisa you all set I'm all ready all right let's call the me to order then good evening everyone this is the regular scheduled meeting of the municipal anus Board of the burough River Edge today is Wednesday March 12
2025 the time now is 7:30 pm Miss steinley yes thank you this is this meeting of the municipal Landy Board of the burough of River Edge is being held remotely and recorded via Zoom due to the burough council chambers and availability and is in compliance with
the provisions of the open public meetings act and Associated regulations notice of this meeting was published in the Bergen Record posted on the front doors of burough Hall and posted on the Burrow's website 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 bur's website near the posting of the meeting notice and included dial and login information during the public comment period of this meeting if you would like to make a public comment please press the raise hand button on
Zoom or dial star9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand the board will address You by name or the last four digits of your phone number and may mute 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
prior to making a public comment and we can get into the call okay Mr Mayor here Mr caslin here sorry Miss here oh no
I oh thank you sorry I froze for a second you're back Mr Craig here Mr Gibbons here Mr Keno here
councilman glass here Mr feffer here Mr gotier here and Mr Sala here all right also present our zoning officer Mr dekin our
board planner Mr Barons and our board engine Mr florus okay thank you very much and uh just for housekeeping purposes we're going to start out with a curfew at 10 o'clock tonight we'll see where we get
to at that point uh first item on the agenda for the evening is under approval of minutes uh we have a draft of our minutes uh from the our meeting of February 12th 2025 a draft set of the minutes was circulated to the board for review prior to this evening's meeting open it to the board for comments or
questions on those draft minutes okay there being no comments I look for a motion to approve mov thank you Mr C is there a second second thank you Mr cier all right and no everyone is eligible so we can do a voice vote do a
Voice vote okay all in favor any any POS name St okay thank you very much next item under approval of minutes is minute or minutes for our February 26 2025 meeting draft set of the minutes was circulated to the board prior this evening's meeting for review off to the board for
comments and or questions on those draft minutes there being no comments or questions I look for a motion to approve please so moved thank you Mr G is there a second second thank you Mr
giens and all members were present at on the 26th as well so we can do a voice vote okay great all in favor I'm going to abstain because I wasn't able to review the minutes myself okay with with that abstention noted all in favor I I I any
opposed okay thank you very much continuing on excuse me continuing on this evening's agenda we moov now under discussion uh the New Jersey state Planning Commission will conduct a joint public meeting with Bergen County regarding the draft preliminary State
development and Redevelopment plan on Tuesday April 1st 2025 from 12 to to 2 p.m. purpose of these public meetings is to educate the public on how the cross acceptance process will work and to give members of the public State local and County officials and all other interested parties an opportunity to
learn about comment on and discuss the proposed changes to the draft preliminary statement sorry draft preliminary State development and Redevelopment plan uh we just wanted to make that information generally available I if anybody has
any comments or questions on that I I'll give two minutes on it maybe so the last time the state adopted um a state development Redevelopment plan was in 2001 it was supposed to be updated periodically every three years I believe and here we are in 2025 and I I think
the real impetus and the reason the reason that they're doing it is to uh coordinate the affordable housing legislation that was adopted last year so the the legislation is supposed to go hand inand with the new state plan and so again they're they're moving forward with the what they're calling preliminary state plan and part of that
process is what they call the cross acceptance process whereby municipalities the public and various governmental entities get to get provide their feedback the um the state will you know consider it and potentially update the plan and the associated mapping and so the counties
act as what are called negotiating entities and so obviously we're in Bergen County so Bergen County acts as sort of the the mediator between municipalities and the state they're kind of the go between and every county has their own negotiating entity and so cross acceptance process has what's
called a response template it's it's basically a questionnaire of 11 questions um that municipalities can respond to after they have a chance to review the plan with regard to you know certain policies uh planning efforts the town has done and and you know General
sorts of feedback so that's essentially what the Burrow's task will be to uh complete this response template again in reaction to the plan which I've reviewed and it's it's fairly General much more General than the one that was done in 200 one again because this you seems to
be a bit of a rush job frankly and it's my understanding that they want to get it adopted by uh December by the end of uh the current Administration so towns will be able to give feedback it'll be limited as far as the influence we'll actually be able to have but may be able to revise some of the wording and
certainly can take a look at the mapping um regarding the mapping um there's a series of planning areas planning area one being the mo most Urban urbanized area in the state River Edge is all of planning area one and there's really little opportunity to change that we
could certainly take a look but um the implications of the planning areas are that funding gets directed in certain ways you know toward the urban areas for certain uses toward you know more Rural and agricultural areas for other uses um and really the state plan itself is used to guide funding primarily but but
municipalities do have to consider that in doing their local planning so that's where everything connects in any event it's not a not a major thing that requires a ton of time but it's something the the burrow and the board U should be aware of and should take part in okay and then is is there timing for
when those comments need to be submitted by Tom and I think this is just a well the count the Bergen County is about a month or two behind frankly um and at first I had heard they weren't going to be the negotiating entity but I guess they are now I I don't know I didn't see the letter but uh my understanding is the counties have to give their input by
the end of May so this is something we should try to do sooner than later again I don't think it's a major undertaking it could be done by by us by members of the board however you want to do it you know to respond to this thing um but uh
maybe by that first meeting in April might be a good Target okay all right so why don't we will'll make a note of that to for uh for an agenda item for a meeting our meeting on the 26 of the 1 meeting in the in April any questions from the board for
for Tom on this point okay I could send the link to everybody so they can see what the plan actually says and have more information yeah that would be great if you could do that okay we're going to move on now on our agenda then under memorializations the
first item uh is a resolution for adoption of the annual report for the board for 2024 draft of the resolution was circulated for the board's review prior to this evening's meeting I open it to the board for questions or comments there being none I'll look for
a motion to approve the resolution as drafted moved thank you Mr Keno is there a second second and Comm Mr Feer and this could also be um a Voice vote as well okay all in
favor any oppos any abstain okay thank you we do we do not have uh the resolution for uh five New Bridge Road the app was Nick Valente we'll pick that up at a future meeting we're going to continue now on the
agenda under completeness review applicant is uh alandro and Kristen Gomez property is 847 bogert road block 114 Lot 12 application seeking variances for a proposed addition renovation and alteration of a
single family residence Miss sty yes thank you prior to the meeting I reviewed proof submitted by the applicant and found them to be sufficient for the board to hear this application tonight okay thank you Mr
dekin uh the hello thank you uh the information that was submitted uh seems complete and uh I have no other comments okay Mr Flores good evening everybody um I would I would office review the architecture of plans uh the existing topographic
plans the survey the sign the sign you know sign survey the letter of no compliant from Mr dekins and you know the uh the board uh the land use boarding application and we found that all the information submitted is sufficient for the board to proceed with the application okay thank you Mr foris
Mr Barons any input from you on this one uh nothing further Mr chairman okay thanks very much questions or comments on the board on completeness okay there being none Miss steinley we look for a motion to deem the application complete that
moved thank you m Givens there second thank you Mr gr all right Mr Mayor yes Mr kaslin yes Miss Boland yes
Mr Craig yes Mr gibons yes Mr kigo yes councilman glass yes Mr feffer
yes Mr gotier yes and Mr SAA yes okay the motion passed okay thank you everyone we're going to move then right into new business applicant are Alejandro and
Kristen Gomez subject properties 847 Bogi road block 114 Lot 12 application seeking variance for a proposed addition renovation alteration of a single family home I think we have the applicants
here good evening Mr chairman uh Thomas J Barrett I will be representing the applicants at the hearing this evening ah okay good evening Mr did not did not was not aware of that but good evening welcome and the floor is yours yes sir
um so it's it's a um relatively simple application uh the clients are looking to add onto their home uh to enhance its appearance to make it more usable for them uh the proposal does
require um two variances um the um well I guess this is a good time to discuss there's an issue um Mr uh CA
rightfully so uh cited the new ordinance in stating that the pool is considered a building or a structure and therefore is included in building
coverage uh until that ordinance was adopted the uh pool was just part of the impervious coverage and as the board will recall the new ordinance also allows a discount on the surface area of a
pool uh to the extent of 50% of that surface area in impervious coverage so it is um my belief and and that when the right hand was writing the
ordinance the left hand inserted this provision not realizing the conflict it would create uh as Mr Costa lettera pointed out uh if you counted the entire pool area and if you counted it as building
coverage instead of the 26.1% that's on the application and on the plan as being that which uh that for which a variance is being sought that the building coverage is actually 30.1% and no discount
applied uh and again if it's if it's not considered and and the ordinance does consider it but but if if that section was inadvertently included without considering the other portion of the ordinance uh it creates this conflict
and until until I saw Mr C's letter I wasn't aware of that portion of the of the new ordinance I knew about the discount and everything so I I just want wanted to present that issue to the board in advance because everything that we have done was with a
building coverage of 26.1% uh and that interpretation does not affect the impervious coverage which is still less than 35% and I'd like to add also that is the applicant's intention not to
construct the pool at the current time they want to you know get their built if the board approves uh but the pool is down the road and they wanted to uh again taking into account the board's concern about future uh possible variances they wanted to show that
everything that they intend to do with this property whether it's now or a couple of years down the road is included in the plan and uh comports with the ordinance in terms of impervious coverage so um having said that u i you
know I am prepared to proceed uh and again with with with the understanding that everything we prepared was based on a building coverage of 26.1% which would have been the case had the pool not been included in building
coverage chairman can I make a comment yes Mr dekin um and maybe Tom you could help me um in regards to where where is it saying that a pool is a structure so we went down this Rabbit Hole Jason and I had discussed this so uh if if you can
follow me section 46-27 regulates accessory buildings and structures and in section 27b there's a list of items um that basically include accessory buildings and structures it says accessory buildings and structured shall include
the following and the list now includes above ground and inground swimming pools and I believe the original intent was so that would be captured under lock coverage um but being that it's technically under the list of accessory accessory building or uh structures
leads one to conclude that it technically falls under that category even though it doesn't have a roof I don't think anybody here would consider it a building per se I think it's a it was an inadvertent inadvertent um thing that that should be adjusted so on the one hand it seems like it's technically
listed on the other hand practically I think we could not not ignore it but consider the implications of it and and really focus on the the lock coverage aspect of the pool including the discount and certainly the the board wouldn't have recommended a discount
while placing it under the building coverage limitation so obviously there's an adjustment that that should be made yeah than thanks Tom uh yeah because um I've really never heard of that before and I didn't find that in the code um
but the my issue would be uh listing it as a structure uh technically it is the way it's constructed but it's underground uh and building coverage uh the uh my interpretation of building coverage is what sits on the lot the
size of the buildings that are allowed to be permitted on that lot uh and with the uh surface of the pool being at grade and Below um I think the only thing should be calculated would be the lot coverage and then the percentage
that is discounted off of that um I don't know maybe uh Marina can help out in regards to this but I think that's something that should be um stated but should be addressed and corrected uh in the codes because um I don't think
you're going to see a lot of variances coming uh to the board if they're putting a pool in or there if there's a pool in if I have to calculate a an inground pool as a structure and building coverage and but Marina just before before you jump in I just want to
add this to your commentary I think the board has the opportunity acting as a zoning board to make an interpretation on this so Steve has guidance moving forward when he reviews these things he can consider your interpretation and you know whether or not to issue future variances while this
gets reconsidered that's my only thought okay y yep I would agree with that and then also I think that with respect to this specific applic application since it's this mistake or this issue has
arose out of this situation and we're discovering it now and it wasn't necessarily the intent of the board when we made those changes last year um we could say with respect to the building coverage it's based on this specific
scenario and we anticipate we um the 26% or whatever it is is what um should be the main building coverage but for the specific uh this specific application under this specific zoning ordinance it'll be
permitted to be 19.52% but in the future if things change um then it's not going to be calculated like that and it won't be calculated as as building coverage so I think we if the board does end up granting any these variances we'll have
to be very specific in the wording of what is being granted if that makes sense we we'll have to just craft it in a way that we're not granting building coverage for the future of 29% it's just specifically for
this pool which has to be calculated like this Mr chairman may I speak yes Mr Mayor so uh Marina and Tom and Steve uh what I think needs to take place is
there needs to be some sort sort of a draft of a revision uh brought before this body so that this body can recommended to the council and the council can then change the ordinance and I would hope we could
expedite that so that we wouldn't have to be so careful about our language going forward thank you we can do that we'll do yes thank you Mr just one more thing Steve it's
not in the code book it's in the um the ordinance that was passed last year it hasn't been Incorporated yet into the new code book that usually comes out in July of each year okay yes because I didn't I didn't find it at first either and then it dawned on me new ordinance let me go
look at that yeah no I I have I have some of those copies I just didn't uh you know see that part because I really didn't go to look at it uh because of what I've done in the past in regards to building coverage and in ground pools
right yes I I just want to remind Tom uh don't forget also like I mean just to get some clarification on on the same uh ordinance uh 416 uh on I'm 41627 C3 it was a little very um you know
we're trying to understand the part too it wasn't very clear I think we'll collectively review that whole section to make sure everything is in s okay thanks good suggest good so Mr Barett just to be clear is is the intention this evening to have as
part of your application approval of a future pool yes okay and because because it will fall it will be less than the 35% impervious lot coverage
limitation okay okay so perhap perhaps you know an approval isn't necessary because of course when when it the uh when the construction is planned they're going to have to go get a permit every anyway but again it was it was really Mr chairman
just just to show the board uh because of the concerns that have been raised in the past uh as to people's future uses of the property that here here's how they intend to use it not all of it at once that's all okay yeah I just it it just I'm just
trying to see exactly where I mean I saw in the application there was reference to it but there's no I don't see anything in the plans maybe we'll get to that as we as we proceed yeah I'm pretty sure it's on the S plan but we we'll be able to point
that out to you okay Mr chairman just a procedural question um I understand what Mr Barrett is saying I'm just wondering if uh if the applicant can give us some sort of timeline or time range within which they
would plan on building this pool because I I don't think it would be wise for anyone uh if we just had an open-ended approval you know that may be interpreted to pass on to a future owner or it may just be inter interpreted to
uh you know apply indefinitely and you know we all know conditions change ordinances change things just change so you know I would I would just be asking if uh if if we could set some sort of time limit assuming there's an approval
but if there is an approval we would want to have some time limit on that so I think Miss steinley has has an answer for you so there there are already um controls in the bur ordinance and in the land use law for how long um an approval
will last without construction occurring um so if they don't meet that deadline I think it's it depends on what it is but it's about one to two years um so if if they don't take action on it then it won't the variants won't apply perfect
thank you and uh chairman the U on the plan the schematic site plan it does say proposed pool okay I I was having a hard time reading okay maybe somebody can point that out to me later on okay um that
said um Mr Barrett why don't we uh I think whoever is going to give testimony this evening let's get uh let's get them sworn in okay Mr Mrs Gomez if you want to unmute
yourselves and everyone you please raise your hand can Kevin spank is also going to testify I am here as well and is Chris here or not no I'm I'm testify you're you're gonna do it okay thanks Kevin all right so if you please raise
your right hands you swear 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 the Gomez is if you could please State your your name um and your address for the record
please my name is Alejandro Gomez uh 847 BT Road and I'm Kristen Gomez also 847 bogert Road right and Mr Uh Kevin kenani associate Architects um in Fair
law New Jersey uh it's 21-00 route 208 suet 260 and could you provide the board with some background on your experience in lure certainly I am licensed in the state of New Jersey and in good standing since uh 2009 I have worked here at
canania associate Architects since 1994 I am licensed I have a bachelor's degree of architecture from NJIT and have you have you appeared in front of other boards Mr Sting hundreds including this board okay thank you any questions from the board as to Mr spin's
qualifications okay Mr Barrett now this may or may not come into play um Mr Gomez is a licensed engineer so perhaps he should also give his background uh and the board could
then accept him not only as the homeowner but as a potential expert witness as well in terms of engineering that's that's okay if you could just please explain your lure and um experience Mr G
sure uh I'm a professional engineer uh went to school for civil engineering at Ruckers I hold license in um New Jersey as well as New York I've had my license since 2012 and my license as well as in good standing any questions as to Mr Gomez's
qualifications from the board okay thank you so uh m can you describe to the board the uh proposed improvements as well as and as we go
through them we can talk about the reasons that a variance is being requested certainly um and can I share my screen please yes thank you Mr chairman just got to find the right one
not it okay uh can you see my screen yes yes okay perfect okay um when we were approached by the Gomez's uh they were looking to increase the size of their house uh currently the house is
a three-bedroom one and a half bath um approximately 1400 Square ft total uh small house um all of the rooms are undersized in comparison to what would be considered today's standard uh of of a house um specifically the kitchen is a
galley Style Kitchen it is at the widest point it's 10 feet wide but it Narrows down where the existing stair is to 8T wide um the family room is is approximately 12T wide U it's it's very narrow uh the bedrooms
are all undersized running around 116 uh by 113 is the average on the on the bedrooms um with the third bedroom at the back of the house because of the way the the bathroom works and the stair Works um the bathroom the bedroom at the back of the house is actually only 6' 10
wide um it is very difficult to actually fit a full bedroom or full bed within the room so that was what they were looking to increase as well as the main hallway on the second floor of the current house is only 21 wide which technically doesn't meet code um and when it actually comes down to the final
bedroom on the second floor it is actually pinches down to two feet on the angle so you can't even get a a large bed into the biggest bedroom because you don't have room to turn the bed itself so ultimately they were looking to expand on the house get a fourth bedroom
on the house as well um and make the rooms all usable um so that is where we we started with the intent on the house so we were looking at adding to the front of the house to the side of the house and to the rear of the house on our site plan you can see the dark shaded area is the area that we're
looking to add on on the first floor ultimately we' be building a second floor over the top of all of this as well so it would be a whole new bedrooms layout bathrooms the whole second floor is brand new um the first variance that is created is where the existing house
is situated on the property it currently is is approximately six feet at the back of the house to the property line it is exactly 5 ft from the front corner of the house to the property line um so that house is skewed at an angle to the property line itself in doing that and
adding that 4 foot6 to the front of the house we actually are sliding the 4 foot6 triangularly into the sidey yard setback and ultimately it's one and a half inches that we are into the setback at that corner so we are at 4.875 FT um
we felt that this was was dominous in nature and that aligning ourselves with the side and of the existing house and matching the existing house was the right way to go uh again because of setbacks everything was pushed to the other side with the addition that we were doing um so with the addition we actually are not creating any other
additional sidey guard setbacks we're not creating any rear yard setbacks it is just this front corner setback issue as the first variant second variant that is created is the overall height of the house from the street side from bogert when you look at the house the actual house is uh
29' 3 in it's right here 293 from the peak of the house to the grade but in your town the ordinance requires us to measure to average grade the average grade is [Music] [Music] going across the property or from front
to back on the property of over 10 feet and that slope is what's creating this this variance um not so much the height we were looking to try to make a An Elegant proportional roof on the house to what we are actually on the facade so
we have a a 10 pitch on our roofs uh to get us up to this point um and anything that we pull that down anymore we actually looked at it anything that we we pulling it down it is it actually makes the house water and makes the roof disproportionate with the rest of the
house and unattractive overall so we are looking for the aesthetic quality and that was the reason for that variance itself um overall the property currently is non-conforming is supposed to be 75 feet wide and we are only 50 and that property's overall size is supposed to
be 7500 square feet where we are only 7,25 so we are undersized on the lot uh and undersizing the width and that also will attri to the fact that we have that minor uh side yard setback but the issue comes in with the
overall sizes that we are creating the overall footprint uh ends up being 181 111.3 with the um the total building coverage uh I'm sorry total uh yes build uh Total Building coverage so with it when you do the math it works out as
26.06.2012 a 24.4% so we felt that this was a variance that was di Minimus in nature and that the the positives outweigh the negatives the overall aesthetic quality of the house outweighs the negatives of
these variances that we're asking um in order to get it down to the correct size let's go to the floor plan I think that's the easiest one to look at see on the floor plan none of our rooms are oversized we're not increasing the house drastically and making it a a MC Mansion if you will um we only are 11 fo4 in the
dining room our family room is only uh 15 foot one wide overall so none of these rooms are huge and on the second floor all of the bedrooms fall within basic standard size for a bedroom nowadays is is 12 x 12 and we are we are
running at 1110 wide and 118 wide on the bedrooms 124 on the third bedroom um so overall I believe all of our sizes all fit within what would be a standard for today um we have also done some color renderings
that I would like to share as well stop sharing this so we've done three color renderings of the house first one that I will show you is the front elevation of the house um you I'm gonna mark this as
exhibit A1 okay if you could just describe it and your office prepared it uh we had it prepared yes we have a color we have a rendering company that we use so um overall what we were trying to do is try to show the aesthetic beauty
of the house that we are creating that it is in conformance with the neighborhood it actually brings the neighborhood up our overall height of our house is aligned with the neighbor to the South immediately to the right um we will be about four and a half to five inches taller than their house but
overall the variance that we're asking for doesn't uh become disproportionate with the neighbor Hood itself um this again this exhibit A1 is the front elevation we are looking uh pretty much directly west uh from our camera angle
looking at the East face of the house which is the front um we have done a lot of pushing and pulling uh in order to give it some some Dynamic motion to the house uh We've created the two large Gables with a a dormer at the top we've pulled out a Windows which get a window
Bay or seat inside of the room creating a across the front the materials that we are looking to use would be a uh a hearty plank uh system on the bottom which would be a clapboard system and on the top we would do all the top level as a uh shingle style itself with the Hardy
shingles um all of the trim would be an ASAC style trim so it is a composite material um and we would cover it with Shutters on the outside on the front elevation as well as some uh nice Stone uh water table that we would create
around the house um the next elevation that we have which I guess we will mark this as A2 yes this is an elevation looking uh
the camera angle is looking North West um so we are looking at the southeast uh side the East being the front elevation Southside being the uh leftand side elevation of the house again we are looking at how we uh are pulling the
skirt roof on the front of the house and carrying it around the side into a larger Gable that will be on the side that comes down it is it is Fae in nature uh but it actually allows for the fireplace to come through a main Peak which always looks more attractive um
and it it just Builds on the side of the house we're taking the the uh the stone water table carrying it around creat a bay window in the front of the uh side of the house as well that pushes out with some nice trim around it um again we are looking to carry the some of the shutters along the side of the house as
well in this elevation you can kind of see the grade and how the grade does drop off to the back to a existing garage that is at the rear of the house what we are planning on doing is taking the same finishes that we have on the house and refinishing the rear garage so it's not we're not increasing the size
of it we're not rebuilding it we're just putting new siding on it new stone on it new shingles on it so it actually matches the house so it becomes one cohesive project the last elevation that we've done the color rendering
was the rear elevation of the house and in this case our camera angle is looking Eastward we are looking at the west side of the house which is the rear of the house again the stone will carry around the house onto the bottom uh level where it's all exposed the
basement is EXP osed um and we would carry the stone around on the retaining walls uh that currently are present and then the Garage itself we showing how the finishes will carry on to the garage so ultimately we are trying to create a nice uh attractive house on all
elevations um in the Costa engineering report there were some questions that he had um specifically provide Building height calculations which we have done the full Building height calculations I had that a moment ago um give me one second I need to open
that back up okay uh can you see that are you is that screen showing now the building height calculations not yet not yet okay good at designing houses I'm very poor at figuring out how to get back into my
zoom um sorry I'm there we go okay share photo Okay so we've done the building now it should be showing is that correct this is the
survey that's showing correct this is a survey your dimensions are on the right yes that's correct what we have done on this one is we've dropped in what the actual grade elevations are around the house um at approximately 6 feet off of the corners of the house so it's 128 .5 off of this corner 128 off of that
corner in this side um we came off of multiple Corners around the house so we did 11 different spots you average it out and divide it by 11 it works out to be thank you you're welcome okay so I can stop sharing that um the next item that he had was the aggregate cover of the
accessory use and structures to conform with the variance relief if required um from my calculations what we would need to do is take the rear yard of the property from the house back that ends up to be 321.50 sare ft and uh the access
structures would be the pool the total pool is 364 squ F feet with the surround and the garage which is 22 uh 22 I'm sorry 221.05 185.46 7% that is the total aggregate I do not
know whether that is a variance or not but that would be the aggregate of the pool and the um Garage in relation to the rear yard I believe we are allowed to go to 30% or 150 square feet which is
what his letter said um obviously we are over the 150 square feet but we are significantly under 30% the last thing that was on here was the uh number six on his letter was uh per the burough code the minimum
required open space between a proposed addition in the building of the joining property shall be not less than 12T uh we did measure that today from the corner of our house to the corner of the neighbor's house on the Northern side which is the the closest of the houses
uh we have 16 foot4 currently with our small variant that we're looking at we'd be going to 16 foot2 would be between our house and the neighbor's house so we are not uh having an issue with that um I believe that pretty much
covers everything and believe that uh the additions are Dom Minimus in nature overall um and that based on the uh benefits outweighing the negatives with the fact that the house is a significant Improvement to the neighborhood and the
fact that the property is undersized that uh I believe the board uh should be able to look favorably upon this application just um my Kevin my understanding is that the uh necessity for the sidey guard
variance the inch and a quarter that we're talking about is also necessitated by the need to um reconstruct a portion of the foundation that is correct I'm getting that right that is correct the front
foundation wall has uh significant cracks in it and it is going to be re rebuilt and that again with us pulling it out the 4 foot6 it's fine we can pull it out we can actually tie back into the existing corner and repair the foundation uh where the damage currently
is um if we were to replace replace the entire foundation wall um the fact of how close we are to the neighbor's property and where the neighbor's driveway is when you dig down into the ground to take the foundation out there is something called the angle of repose
which would be an angle coming up off of the trench that you're building we would actually undermine the neighbor's property uh by trying to replace that Foundation um without having to do uh exorbitant sheeting uh system in order to stop that from
happening okay so so the necessity comes about as a result of the con the C current location of the house which as you say is skewed it's not parallel to the property line correct and then just one other thing I
know you've testified too and I just would like to reiterate it so a person who is uh standing on bogot road and looking at this house if it's approved when it's completed they're looking at a house
that's 29 feet high is that correct that is correct 29 foot three inches high that is correct and that conforms with the surrounding houses as far as you could you could tell yes um again it's the house immediately adjacent to us um
we would be about 4 in taller than the house immediately adjacent to the South to the north we will be the existing house to the north basically matches what our current house is so we will be 3 feet taller than that all the houses across the street it is impossible to
judge because of the slopes on the property so when you go to the houses on the other side no matter what even with our higher house houses across the street are still going to be four feet taller than us because the difference in grade from the two sides cor Street y
I do not believe I have any further questions for uh Mr SP okay uh Mr Barrett do you have any other professionals testifying tonight no I just have the homeowners that are going to testify Mr chairman okay um if
you want to go ahead and absolutely present them and come back with questions from our Professionals in the board no problem Mr and Mrs Gomez
so you've heard uh Mr spins testimony could you tell the board uh why you engage their services and what it is that you need in order to better enjoy your home yes of course um so yeah Tom and Kevin already kind of touched on a
little bit but uh my wife and I we moved into the neighborhood in 2014 uh we quickly fell in love with the neighborhood in the town uh We Came From The Far Away lands of of pramis and and I say that because um it does feel very different here and since
we've been here our family has grown um we have two boys eight and four years old and as Kevin has mentioned the the existing size of the bedrooms we've we've very quickly outgrown the home and the last and final straw was when that third bedroom and we have a small uh Crib in that bedroom we weren't able to
convert for a larger bed for for our youngest so again that's when we looked at this project and said okay we need to do something um again you know coupling that with some other issues the house is from 1922 so as you can imagine there there's some other issues that that's
just standard with with older homes uh as was touched touched upon before we have significant cracking in the basement uh very old concrete we have cracking on the foundation itself as well as the walls uh whenever we get rain um and we have saturation in the
ground we actually have water percolating into our foundation uh so similarly the the wood being very very old over 100 years old in the roof and the structure is a little deteriorated so looking at the project as a whole uh we we we said you know we want to stay
in the town again we we love River Edge um you know the only way would to be possible would be to increase the size of the rooms again to accommodate our family uh and just also to to put some additional storage in there um you know how it is right now you know we we we
have to seek storage outside of our home uh in order to to store you know winter clothes or or or whatever it may be that doesn't fit our current home so as those were the main reasons for for the current build and what we proposed thank
you nothing further Mr chairman okay thank you Mr Barrett uh GNA turn now to our professionals uh we'll start with uh Mr Flores please can you hear me I'm sorry I was having
some issues before with the Internet is very slow um can hear you okay perfect um as you can see uh the homeowner testified that you know the family has overgrown and they're proposing to make the entire uh you know uh home more affordable for the kids and for her
family and pretty much the explanation that we got from the uh from the architect on the comments that we have most of them were address and I get you know and most of the especially for the agre coverage the uh building coverage will
be addressed once the ordinance gets revised and absolutely right I agree that you know if the lot will be conforming for 75 uh 75 Square fet they will need they would not need a variance uh it's just the nature of the size of a
lad I will remind the uh the applicant that and the board if the application gets approved that storm water management will need to be implemented since the uh bu the overall L coverage is increasing by roughly uh 800 square
feet so some you know STW management mitigation will be implemented uh as well as uh you know uh the calculations that were show on the building High also to be you know shown on the revise plans
uh as be part of the you know um you know conditions of approval um other than that the only question I have is uh is the property fence out already uh the property is already fenced in at the moment yes okay uh
perfect uh so so that that that helps out with the the future pool that is going to be implemented and then the other the the other question I will not not question the only thing I will remind that is that soil movement uh permit will be required as part of the
application for next you know if you go in construction phase so we will be able to address uh any changes that you you know that you might come up CU I saw that you're proposing a couple of retainable so we don't know at this stage if the retaining walls are going
to exit four feet and if they do I mean that can be addressed at you know at the soil movement uh you know permit level uh other than that I don't have anything else okay thank you Mr Flores Mr de soon um thank you chairman uh no I I
don't have anything else it was a good presentation and all my concerns were addressed okay Mr Barons anything any input on this one uh just to reiterate a couple things that I heard so three variances sidey setback Building height
building coverage for the reasons that were stated although with the building coverage um they're at 26.06.2012 square feet um and I'll just note the garage it's the detach garage itself I think I heard was 221 square feet so whether or not the board takes that into
consideration um and I would also note that it looks like they are providing rear yard amenities in the form of a deck that um you can walk out from the first floor as well as a patio underneath so we have this issue of you know making sure that people plan for that so there's not a a subsequent request for a larger patio or something
like that so it looks like they've planned um for the future as indicative by the pool that they're showing so I I have no further comments okay thank you Mr baren let's turn to the board now Mr Gib can I start with you sure um couple of questions and just
a couple of comments so the garage and the driveway um not exactly sure who this is for I assume it's for the architect is it passable with the future improvements to get a car past it and get to the garage yes it is
because I see the little bump outs there so just little concern that I see it had like a Mini Cooper or something you know put in house from the biggest bump out from the farthest bump out which is the actual fireplace from that bump out to the property line we have 11 foot uh
11.1 feet um so the actual driveway is a full it's more than eight feet wide at that location and how wide is a typical car uh typical car is approximately 6' three from mirror to mirror okay so there's definitely room I just look at
that and I'm just envisioning a car trying to get past that and making the garage completely useless right um okay and what is the height of the actual attic space the attic space itself from finished floor of the attic to the
underside of the ridge will be seven foot I have it written down here um 7' 11 to the bottom of the ridge okay and that won't be that's just storage right that's correct living space that by any stretch it's just a pull
down that is correct door kind of thing okay yep um the pool we didn't really talk much about it I know it's potentially a future project so is that 12 by 24 whatever it was is that included in the 26% that we're being
asked to approve it is not in the 26 because that is considered building coverage and we did not include that as part of building coverage with that new ordinance um if it is considered part of building coverage and it's the full 436 Square ft which would be the pool and
the pool surround then we would be at 31.2 4% okay well let's assume since I don't think anyone wanted that to happen What would be the the I forget how we changed it but the the the lot coverage I guess is our current term what would be the
lot coverage when that when and if that pool is put in the lot coverage we've included the pool in the lot coverage already in order to to show that we are under so we're at 34.9% and that is with the pool included okay and we have backyard
amenities yep um okay so those were my only uh questions I did just want to make two comments I think the house is going to look gorgeous um nice job with the renderings and this whole appendix here was probably the best explanation I've
heard from a from an applicant um on why you're doing this I Mak sense when I hear you're an engineer so um we don't usually get that much explanation so looks nice thank you for answering my questions that's all I have okay thank
you Mr gibons Mr Mayor I'm good thank you you're all set okay thank you sir uh Mr Craig yeah just I wanted to questions uh on the comments um from Mr CA um do you do you know if
you're going to be moving more than 5,000 square feet of I do not we have not worked that out but if if we are then um we will follow whatever procedure is required I know he was asking um for the soil erosion and
sediment control plan if we do require we will provide that and then there was other language about you know storm water conveyance the SE pitch pits Etc you'll comply with all that absolutely yes including there was another uh other issue about utilities
the utilities are remaining where they currently are um and I think there was a question about trees there are no trees being removed U other than the ground landscape around the house and additional ground landscape will be placed back in
okay thanks okay Mr Cay uh Mr kigo uh thank you as far as the work around that house uh it looks beautiful and and uh I thank you for your presentation that was very good uh and I
have no issues with it um the the pool not that I necessarily have issues with it but I guess I got a couple more questions uh when when uh you gave us the 34.9% number that includes the concrete uh I guess decking that would be
immediately around the pool right that is correct we have uh we have provided a pool surround which is 76 squ ft it is on our list and the pool with the 75% discount is 144 square F feet okay now um what's going to surround the surround
is it going to be grass yes okay are there going to be any pavers steps anything that gets you from the house to the pool when the kids for example are all wet and they don't want to walk through the grass is there going to be an inclination to put down pavers that
they can hop on something like that as of this moment no there is nothing that we are looking to add on okay and and the homeowners understand that if they needed to do that they would have to come back to us right even with pavers because you're so close to that limit
that is correct okay uh where's the pool room located where all the pool equipment is going to be I believe that that is going to be located if I'm not mistaken um U Mr Gomez can actually respond to that one I believe it is in the basement of the garage because there is a store room under the garage because of the
slope that is correct so now the question for our professionals is that allowed I don't think so with chlorine and chemicals I don't know that you can store them in the basement but the professionals can Enlighten us it's in the basement of a detached garage oh in the basement of
the garage I'm sorry correct same question U um to the professionals is that allowed well they would on my part it is and and the applicant would have to comply with any burrow code or regulation on storage of chemicals um if
that isn't allowed well I'm I'm I'm not so much worried about the storage of chemicals as I am as the equipment in uh inside um usually they're in sheds outside in the backyard so we're talking about a basement of of a structure that's a
little different um all right so yes they when they get the permits uh if there's a Mechanicals uh you know on the bottom section of the garage uh if there's a heater um that all needs to be permitted and it be vented out uh
accordingly okay um I think that's it the the drawings are beautiful so good luck with that okay thank you Mr kigo Miss bowan um my I have a question regarding the air iing units there's nothing shown
on the plan and where would you plan on putting that I'm assuming you'd have some yes any uh compressors would have to be located behind the house um and based on the size of the house I would assume we would have two compressors one for the first floor one for the second
um so they they would be at the rear of the house uh on the Northern side where there is a retaining wall currently so it would be blocked from the neighbor's house so they would not see it um and it would uh not be directly in front of the doors that lead out of the basement that
was my concern that it' be too close to the neighbors so correct but there is a retaining wall at that location so it would um they' be be set down so the neighbors would be looking over the top of them not really looking at them great that's all I have okay thank you Miss
Bolan Mr feffer I have nothing thank you thank you sir Mr godier nothing at this time thank you thank you Mr Salva uh nothing at this time thank you thank you sir and uh councilman
glast nothing thank you okay um I think all of my questions were answered and I I too would Echo the sentiments of U my colleagues on the board here as to the application and the presentation of
it um at this time I will look to open the uh meeting to the public for public comment Mr K before we do uh just a quick followup to miss bolan's question sure wherever the AC units are going to
be placed does that increase the uh coverage technically yes if you're going to include the air conditioner yes you'd be you'd be adding nine square feet for each compressor so we' be adding 18 square feet so that brings you over the 35% so you need a variance there
Tom did we change the the C the code to incorporate an exception for HB bear with me in in the calculation you're referring to yeah yep I know we
addressed them in some manner um by the way not that that has to be a stumbling block in this instance because we're talking about such a minute amount that the the board could very easily I think Grant the variance Supan but bring it up so that there's no issues down the
line it would take us to [Music] yeah okay good good point Thank you Mr keno and councilman just just confirm you were you were all set yes okay thank you sir and for look for a motion to open to the public so
moved thank you Mr go is there a second thank you Mr GI all in favor any any oppose any obain okay at this time we're now open to the public for comment on this application only again this is the uh application for 847
Boger Road I believe we have some attendees in the audience yes so if you're interested in commenting or asking a question about this application you can press the raise
hand button on Zoom or dial Star n on your telephone keypad if you're calling in I don't see anyone but Jason has his hand up oh okay we do have one person okay um all right so if you
please state your name and address for the record please I Nicole yep 841 bogert Road Ryan ol same address 841 Boer Road okay good
evening evening we support um the decisions that Alex and Kristen are proposing wholeheartedly okay anything else nope okay thank you very much for your comments thank you
anyone else wishing to be heard on this application in the public okay there appears to be none so I will look for a motion to close to the public please close thank you Mr CRA there a
second think I had a second from Mr Keno all in favor I I oppose they abstain okay we're now closed to the public I will uh look for any further questions or comments from the board members or
our professionals on the application I think Jason has his hand up Jason yes so I just want to remind the applicant um something that you know it might come up because we had the issue
with a different uh you know uh application and construction going on I see that the driveway is going to be redone and you know based on the ordinance we're supposed to be two feet away uh driveway driveway has to be two feet away from the property line that's what I just wanted to keep in mind uh
that if you by any chance extend that then we're going to have to you know we're going to have to be back and forth on this either going to have to renew or have to go back to the board that's all thank you okay any other questions or comments
from the board or our professionals okay uh at this time I'll look for a motion on the application please I'll make a motion um make a motion for 847 bogt road block 114 Lot
12 to approve the variances for maximum building coverage maximum Building height minimum side setback and I guess we are adding lot coverage as 35.2 is corre uh whatever that exact number
would be um and the applicants agreed to storm water management and any other uh permits required for the pool and construction um and for soil management or soil uh movement permits did that cover
everything yes and I I would just ask that there be a condition that there uh notes be put on the plan that if that the itic area um will not be used for dwelling and only will be used for
storage and if it is used for a dwelling unit um then or if it's used for habitation then you'll need to return to the burrow for additional approve it approvals and permits um and that's same goes with the pool
equipment and chemical storage um that you per obtain the proper permitting for for that yep so we could amend that motion for that and then do we need to include go ahead yeah I wanted to just
clarify the variances the sidey yard setback is 4.88 feet the height is 3.2 or 32.5 feet
the lot coverage will be 35.2% just to give a little bit of wiggle room for that hbac unit and if it goes over the over that then you'll have to come back so you'll have to work
within that limit and then the building coverage will be under the current ordinance sorry under the current ordinance it will
be 29.52 per. but if the ordinance is revised the maximum will be 20 and that's only for um the swimming pool um and this addition if it goes
above or if the ordinance is changed it'll still remain at 26.06.2012 that matches the definitions in in the ordinance so then if things change um then it'll it'll go based on what the applicants already were assuming anyways
so can I make one correction to that the proposed building coverage would be 31.2 4% if you add the pool and the surround to the the number 31.2
okay thank you Mr Barrett any any issues with those items not at all Mr chairman okay and Mr gimons will will deem the your motion amend it accordingly yes absolutely okay thank you is there a second for Mr gib's
motion second think I have Mr godier on a second all right Mr Mayor yes Mr kaslin yes Miss Boland yes
Mr cray yes Mr Gibbons yes Mr Keno yes councilman glass yes Mr feffer yes Mr goer yes and Mr Salva yes all right the
motion passes congratulations thank you very much thank you everyone thank you very much everyone we really appreciate it all right we're going to move now into our on our agenda we're going to move down
into Old business uh the applicant is the Rosen bam yiva of North Jersey property is 666 kendri kamac road block 616 lot 9 this application was carried from our meeting of February 12th
2025 and before we proceed I was brought to my attention that I now have a conflict in proceeding on this application I have a professional relation ship with one of the members of the board of the aiva so I need to step aside and I am going to leave you in the
capable hands of our vice chairman Mr cray who will continue on uh this evening's proceedings thank you Mr Craig y um well I guess uh Mr Barrett you have uh a new
design a revised design for the prior after um I'm assuming you want make some presentations M do we need to resear anyone who's going to give a testimony or I'm sorry
believe I'm I'm sorry Mr Craig you're whenever you turn off to the side it's a little bit hard to hear sorry sorry um but we everyone who was previously sworn will still remain under oath today I see the rabbi here um and we'll also have I
think a planner is going to be testifying is that correct or no no okay did you have another um witness tonight Mr Barrett well we have Mr Cardon is back he's the security for theiva
uh but and he was previously sworn yes and and basically the rabbi was going to uh go through the changes that are being proposed and that have been submitted to the board uh the a revised um plot plan was uh
prepared shows the the changes to the location of the proposed fence uh new renderings have been submitted uh and unfortunately Rabbi correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that one of them is slightly
incorrect the uh when when we get to that rendering Rabbi will explain to you what the the difference is um between what is actually being proposed and and unfortunately what came out on the rendering we just discovered it on Monday and it wasn't possible to get a
change between then and now um but it's it's actually I believe it would be considered an improvement but uh that'll be for the board to judge so Tom can you walk us through those changes or um do you guys have the to
share I I could share your New Concept if okay if you would if you would thank you someday you're G to teach me how to do that we'll we'll we'll coordinate that yes here we go you have it Tom or I'm G to share with you uh Rabbi go ahead if you have it yeah please feel
free okay hold let me P it up okay okay can you see my screen yes okay perfect okay so um per feedback from the last meeting uh we met again with the um again with our security professionals including Joe
stos who had a conflict tonight could not be here the former Lieutenant uh riverge police along with our in-house security team um Mr Cardone and along with our fence contractor to see if we could take into account some of the uh feedback that the board gave us last time see if we could um amend some of
the plans so um as discussed uh the fence is going to be remained set back along that uh 30 foot setback um on the far north side um the area in question was really I think that middle section as we called it um in front of the main
building uh which was originally going to be um essentially right behind the ballards which was uh sidewalk and street level uh but again upon further consultation and an understanding that it may be the the best opportunity to get this fence implemented um we were able to move it back down um farther
away from the street so it is no longer going to be on street level so uh following along that setback um for about half of the length of the property it will be um somewhere between 30 and 40 ft back from the actual Street itself uh there's a retaining wall here uh that
that curves around following this curve the fence will follow the curve of that retaining wall which is again set back uh from the street this is at about 30 feet this is closer to about 15 feet um but is about six feet lower than street level um it will then follow along uh
towards where our stairwell is here uh this then mitigates the issues that we had last time of the sight lines for vehicles um turn which was a a concern of the board previously so by setting that fence back um it should mitigate that issue um we updated the rendering
the uh the diagram to include a slide gate as opposed to the um double swing gate um and again uh to make it parallel with that setback as opposed to um perpendicular so uh those really were the accommodations that we made hoping
to kind of um follow along with the recommendations that were made by this committee last time um I think we're hopeful that it really addresses um all of the primary issues that were discussed specifically in terms of the the height of the fence being at sidewalk level and being um
quote unquote an isore uh by moving it again farther closer to the building as well as lower down on the ground um we did this again in consultation with our security team to make sure that the fence would still retain its security properties but at the same time uh not ruin the aesthetic components uh and
then finally not invading the sight line here uh of those Vehicles turning seeing pedest being able to walk on the sidewalk uh and not facing any issues with the fence obscuring Vision there um they they I I hopefully they're they're solid compromises I think they really um
you know both address the security needs that we're looking for from the school as well as uh what the board brought up to us last time uh of course if there are other um questions or feedback we'd be happy to hear them and this was uh this was what we thought might be the best uh solution that would appease everyone so hopefully that um is clear
if there's anything that you need to clarify please let me know maybe if you also uh can you share the uh renderings as well Rabbi uh yeah sure um pull them up okay can you see them see the first
rendering yes now so what what does this depict so this we on the far north side of the property this is where our Entrance Ramp would be um this is uh this just uh I think the board also asked for last time a farther out view we had that view from a little bit closer this is a farther out view um
again this is like if you were almost sitting on the street not standing but like sitting on the street level you can see where the camera is kind of positioned uh and this um shows the iron fence here with The Pedestrian egress gate that was mentioned last time also uh the kickback to allow for vehicles to
come in with the intercom here um and then the kick back up here uh the next rendering this is the one that uh Tom was referring to a minute ago uh the uh the rendering process um was a little bit uh accelerated because we were really trying to get into the
next board meeting and um they uh they the rendering company made a mistake they made the top of the fence flush with the with the you call it this sign here uh but that's really not accurate uh really the the fence is going to be
parallel with the base of the fence here um so again is almost like if you were uh right on ground level the fence is going to be on this second red line um not as displayed in the rendering so that's what Tom was referring to with his uh with the rendering
um I don't know what you want to call it uh snafu so that's the that's the mistake and that's where the fence would lie um just at the top of this um of this uh pedestal then middle and the fence and
the fence is located and yes exactly closer to the building yeah exactly before it was on street level you know alongside the Ballard but now it's uh pushed much farther back again on this side because our property is a little bit on an angle on this side
it's um 30 to 45 feet either from the street or sidewalk it angles a little bit in as you get farther towards the right hand side um but again it's all down on that bottom retaining wall uh and then the final um rendering was uh
just of the far south side oops don't know how to erase all this okay there you go um again which just displays the um the sliding gate here um you you can see that the fence is no longer on the sidewalk level it it is down below this
is the pedestrial gate to get in and out but plenty of clearance when making that turn uh no issues seeing any pedestrians walking on the sidewalk there hopefully those uh the updated renderings help provide some clarity to the to the positioning of the
defense thank you Rabbi thank you um would you like to have your security professional um walk through the next part before we pull our professionals and the other members sure uh Mr Cardon yes sir uh so you you've heard the rabbi
testify and obviously you were part of the meetings uh to discuss the relocation of the fence and and and so the conclusion I understand from what the rabbi said and I would just like you to to repeat it if
it's true that the relocation still offers the security that the Yeshiva is seeking that's correct thank you very much it does I'm nothing further Mr Craig okay okay and here from our professionals Mr
Baron like start just a few comments I mean obviously the um the positioning of the fence has been revised IED um Rabbi I guess this would be a question for you I see a note that shows the middle segment as now being a chain length fence and I you know I understand the position of
from your perspective of you know less of it would be visible um I it would be my recommendation that you stick with the de we'll call it the decorative fence for the the full length of the front uh front of the fence uh you know if the board's so inclined to approve it um and one from a practical standpoint
that chain link fences are more climbable too I mean just from a security aspect so something to consider and and another aspect too is um if you're still agreeable to some amount of landscaping I I do think that would still go a long way to uh you know soften the appearance um we could work
out the detail again if the board onclin work out the details of that and you know something that' be reasonable um just in thinking out loud I think maybe a few Street trees where there are none so for instance the middle segment has a a row of Street trees so maybe popping in a couple on the Northerly and
southerly side and then maybe you know some amount of landscaping in front of the fence something akin to maybe a a shrub every other post or something like that something reasonable but you know not that would obviously screen the whole thing because I think that might defeat the purpose but those are just my
observations and comments so I I'll leave it up to um the board thank you okay um Mr dukin uh no other comments I think Tom hit hit all
mine Mr Forest the location of the new proposed location of the fence uh address the side uh distance issues that we had originally uh at the last hearing and I will just you know uh pick it pck it back uh Mr Tom bar regarding you know
the middle section of chain Ling fence probably just you know keeping the same material and then you know if the board and the applicant is open to uh screen some you know put some Landscaping as screen measure so you know the Kinder
KAC bu are you know beautify that's all I don't have any other comment um Mr Baron would would would uh your client be willing to consider the landscaping and and converting back from
the chain link to the de Road defense yes okay all right let's go to members of the council mayor Papo so um I think this is a good compromise I agree strongly with the
ideas of trees along the north portion and the south portion and Landscaping along the fences themselves and the decorative fence in the middle I'm satisfied I appreciate it and I hope uh the council is
too wonderful I mean the board um Miss band I agree with everything the mayor said uh the the uh the Visions were very nice thank you sweet uh Mr
goer no questions Mr feffer yes I also agree with the sentiments of uh Mr Mayor and Mr barons um and I think someone else might have said it also I do appreciate um the
Yeshiva compromise efforts and and I think it's a vastly improved um proposal now um but I would I would strongly urge the decorative fence and the Landscaping other than that I have
nothing else thank you Mr Geno uh all right so do we have a commitment to the Decora defense instead of the link fence yes oh well I I can I just interrupt for a second I I don't know for sure yet I I can't make a
commitment to the Decker defense as opposed to the chain link now that we moved it down um as the board pointed out last time there's other security things that we would like to implement um and again part of the reason that we wanted the the aluminum fence on top was because of the Aesthetics uh now that it's going to be so barely visible um
maybe we can allocate that money elsewhere I'd like to see what other options I have unless it's going to be a prerequisite for approval um I I I wouldn't want to have to guarantee myself using uh the aluminum fence now that it's been set back and if that's a prerequisite for approval then I'll have to take it under consideration but I'd
like to consider my other security applications with the money uh now that it's not going to be as visible you know I as far as I'm concerned I said it last time the one the one bright shining spot I thought was a decorative fence and that it wasn't going to be chain link because I
think this this fence running along Kinder KAC I said it before say it again it's going to make it look like a prison even if you have it down lower and certainly with a chain link fence I don't even see how that achieves the stated goal of safety because anybody can f climb a chain link
fence so what do you do get an extra four seconds of safety out of it uh so certainly if if the chain link fence is not uh something that you'll remove and and replace it with the decorative uh uh fence I I couldn't uh vote for it uh since our last meeting have there been
any threats or security issues that a fence like the one that is being proposed would have prevented uh that's um there are um nothing that we're aware of specific to our institution um I will mention that there was something uh very recently in
a neighboring Town um where fencing was a critical issue in mitigating some of the concerns that uh the local police departments had um nothing specific to our River Ed location I'm very happy happy to keep it that way uh although I will mention that um we are uh granting
access to the River Edge um car show this summer and they actually specifically mentioned they liked the Privacy they liked how secure the facility was they're going to be using our parking lot free of charge um and they did mention that so I think it's not just um you know for uh specific
threats against Arisha but anybody who would like to use the property definitely feels that uh that level of safety so that's that's that's in the summer that car show M that that's during a time that your school's not U teaching
students in it's on a Sunday yeah um what about the rest of the summer uh there's the summer camp just summer camp there's a summer camp yeah yeah when does that run um I can get the exact dates it's approxim not exact approximate is fine June 25th
to August 15th something like that okay um but just just to be clear my question obviously was about your school I understand there's strats all over the world and and even in our state now um but with respect to your school there
haven't been any security issues or anything of the sort that a fence like this would have prevented right nothing in the last uh 28 days all right uh do we have a commitment to the uh Shrubbery and such is that something you can commit to yes and the renderings do
include uh plantings and arbores and white pines and and and Tom and I have worked before on kind of just figuring out what the best plantings and uh you know we had no problem last year with the solar panels and hopefully we'd have no problem again this year we have no problem doing
that right I I would just Echo some some guidance from the board would be welcome again not not to the intent being not to screen the entire fence but if the board has some direction I think that would benefit wouldn't let me ask this wouldn't screening the entire fence
actually serve more of a purpose if you're going to put the fence up and put a whole row of arer VTE right in front of it wouldn't that serve more of a purpose of preventing people from getting close and even climbing the fence if costs were no Factor absolutely the grant won't pay for uh plantings
unfortunately so we're trying to maximize the dollars that we're receiving from the federal government uh if they were to pay for it that'd be amazing I understand but you're coming to ask ask you're coming to us asking us to change our ordinance and this is is something that I think several of the board members have been concerned about
turning that part of Kinder KAC into what's going to look like a jail and there's going to be plenty of times where your school is closed and it's just going to look like a an empty fenced in kind of thing I also don't see and they still haven't heard how especially now that it's slower and by
the way I do appreciate all the work you have done so I don't want to think you're being attacked here by me but I really don't see how it suits this purpose especially now that it's lower you had indicated in the past that you had not originally considered it being lower because it really wouldn't serve
the same security purpose so now you're coming to us saying you need the security but now you're lowering it because you recognize that what we're saying is indeed true uh and yet it's still not going to serve the same security purpose by your own admission from before so I don't know that we have the grounds to Grant your variance because I don't think you've made the
argument that this actually serves any real purpose to achieve the goals that you stated here initially as a reason why you got to put this fence in that's my thought I will say I will I will end with this and I'll let other people talk um the chain link fence is going to be
an absolute no for me I don't know about everybody else but it's going to be an absolute no for me if you can give me if you can articulate reasons why this how this helps you know I'll certainly consider it but I just don't see it reaching the state of purpose as we sa it in the past but I thank you for for your uh efforts
and work and I'm listening to everything else you're saying and everybody else is saying Mr Craig with your permission I I just like the rabbi to articulate the discussions which took place and that convinced him that
the relocation of the fence would still serve its original purpose of security you know perhaps that would help Mr chinigo sure so originally we we certainly thought at the top of the at the top of the hill would be the best place for it um and I still think in a perfect world
that that would be the best place for it at the same time we understand the need to balance the uh aesthetic maintaining the Aesthetics of River Edge with our Safety and Security and while ideally we would love to have it there we understand that there are other considerations um when we went to reevaluate our our other our other
options were and we met with our security team our primary concern as we mentioned last time was the grade and because of the grade a fence that came up six feet but the grade was here you could easily hop over it uh so we determined that they only really one location um that that would really be an
issue um and if we set the fence far enough back it would be several feet away from that grade issue that really prevented someone from just hopping from the elevated area over the fence because we set it back far enough we we mitigated that issue um to your point
about the chain link fence um there's uh certainly a number of considerations uh you don't want anybody hopping a fence of course especially somebody who's holding something as there's a fence there makes it much more difficult um as we disced last time when our drills with the Riveredge Police Department they're usually in our facility by less than 60
seconds uh due to their proximity and their incredible attentiveness to us um and a fence can slow somebody down anywhere between 30 seconds to a minute uh which is really like you mentioned all we need um part of the discussion last time was a chain link versus an aluminum fence um one of the factors
that we would put into the chain link fence are what's called privacy slats uh similar to what we have around the rest of the property uh that makes finding tow holds more difficult in terms of climbing um as well well as uh takes away some of that harshness of the chain link fence makes it look a little bit more solid uh makes it look a little bit
more um uh like it's uh kind of blending into the background behind the trees U and then to your final Point as mentioned uh the renderings do indicate planting um and we'd be you know happy to you know put some again White Pine Arbor whatever the case may be in order
to maintain uh not a harsh jail-like look just for a point of clarity me the original Fence location that fence was six foot high also has the height of the fence changed no just not noting two board members their hands up and I've
had them up for quite a while Mr Mayor you have a yes I I am I'm not comfortable with the chain link I thought from the way Mr Barrett nodded that the uh I apologize Mr Mayor that the things I've suggest that I heard
from Tom Maring uh and um were were things that they Shiva was agreeing to I would have to say that my vote might change um probably will change uh if there is not a firm commitment um to uh
what we were asking for um so I want to in an effort to be um clear I wanted to be able to say that because I had thought from Mr and Mr baring has apologized for that but just to underline it I thought from his nodding
that that the Shiva was agreeing to this if it's not then um I'm not quite sure whether I can vote for this or not thank you Mr Mayor um Mr glass is your hand up um Mr Gary
had his hand up first okay Mr G hi thank you um yeah I was going to bring up the chain link fence as well if we're not sure whether we're going to have the decorative fence or the chain link fence we don't even know what's really truly being
proposed thank you thank you and um Mr Gibbons I'll Echo the other board members um I think the Decora Defence makes more sense uh from a safety standpoint and an aesthetic standpoint um I appreciate all the work
that you've done you know thank you Rabbi for you know listening our concerns uh and putting it in a more reasonable spot but um I I I think you need the decorative you know just it is a very large building in the middle of our town um and I and I don't want it to
look bad you know I think the chain I think the the decorative fense that you proposed will look very nice with it being down set I think it makes a lot of sense and it's an easy yes for me um with a decorative where you have it so that's all my comments thank
you um I have one comment one actually two questions um one under uh Mr Mr Costa's engineering comments uh the first note under General comments was that a detail
for the proposed Fen and gate showing the dimensions material Foundation installation details Etc um should be provided I don't think we've received that um or am I not aware of
right we had submitted uh we had submitted some documentation uh actually before the last hearing uh I believe I believe however it may have occurred after Mr ca's report but before the hearing Mr Flores would have to confirm that
Mr uh I believe I you know I don't have in Fr of me what I'm looking to the records but I believe they submit a um a de sheet for a decorative fence but not for the chain link F that would be correct yes correct so it was for the
decorative fence that they submitted like on on the previous uh on the previous uh you know hearing I'm trying to look for it I believe I saw it somewhere right there has some change though in the in the uh fence
design then because of the switch to the chain link as well so Mr chairman can I ask for a very brief recess so I could confer with the rabbi Mr C um the councilman has his hand raised if he could just make his
comment before the recess yeah I thank you Marina so before yeah before you guys break Rabbi I'm just I think like Mr Craig was just alluding to maybe I feel like I've seen like multiple different drawings and renderings and
plans at different times I think we got just as aboard we received like different submitt at different times between now and the last time we met I'm pretty certain of that and I saw different things with these submitt than what I think you walked us through
tonight was a little bit different but I guess what would be helpful to me I don't have any specific concerns but I just want to understand exactly what you're proposing cuz it's a little bit unclear to me like can you explain exactly what the extent of the proposed
limits of the chain link fence would be I I'm if I understand correctly it's going to be on the Kinder Kinder Kack Frontage kind of but it'll be set back um on your property it'll be several feet below um the grade of Kinder K can
you kind of like walk that's what I'm trying to get my arms around exactly where the chain link fence would be and what what's your rationale for making part of the fence chain link instead of the other type of fening I I'm not sure I certainly don't have a clear
understanding of that and I'm not sure everyone on the board does and maybe that would be helpful to the discussion sure that that's what I wanted to ask thank you happy too okay so um the far north side the entire gated uh area
leading up to the swing gate is all going to remain uh the aluminum fencing on the far south side um the gating here is all going to remain aluminum when you cross over our entrance or exit ramps um
again we're on a we're on a significant slope there's a significant grade and following uh this line again which is the property line here and then the retaining wall which we have down below this is where the proposed chain link would be so so would the top of the chain link fence be below the elevation
of uh Kinder kamak road so from kinder kak Road the top of the chain link would be here in line okay you mentioned that before got it this rendering not accurate this rendering is not accurate with respect to materials and the height of the top
of the fence the elevation at the top of the fence it's not accurate with respect to either okay that's helpful thank you and one last thing I think we had discussed last time and again I thought I saw it on another submitt like I said I think there have been multiple interim submittal here between now and the last
time we met I thought I saw that that main gate was going to be a slide gate and we had talked about that so I just wanted to request clarification around that instead of what you're showing which I think is a double Leaf gate I thought I had saw on an Instagram submitt that it was going to be a slide gate so it seems like there's been like
some confusion with multiple submittals okay so we we can check on that version from the uh from the engineers um I think I was in front I'm sorry I meant the other gate further south oh this one yeah thanks yes this one originally was going to be a swing gate and we switched
it to be a slide gate okay thank you thank you I no further questions chairman thank you Mr Barrett did you still if I could five minutes Mr Gray okay it's 9:12 now why don't we say
920 surely thank you so much needs to make a motion to yes please okay I'll make a motion to go into recess okay Mr Gib second
second second uh will all in favor thank you what's our return time 920 thank you take a s minute recess and back at 9:20 thank you thank you it is 920 reconvene M St do you need to take a
all yes I'll do the rooll uh Mr Mayor here Mr klin is is excused Miss Boland here Mr cray here Mr Gibbons here Mr
kigo here Mr uh councilman glass oops I you're muted councilman councilman glass oh I see him here he didn't hear me I said I'm here oh I'm sorry uh Mr peer here
Mr goate here and Mr Sala and he is here and just for the record Mr Salva is eligible to vote on this application tonight thank you um Mr chairman that the rabbi would
like to readdress the board uh with your consent and that of the board please certainly thank you yeah um uh Tom and I spoke I I certainly hear the concerns of the board and uh and I completely understand where you're coming from uh at the end of the day we have to make
sure that River Edge maintains um its distinct look and uh aesthetic appeal to everyone so in addition to committing to the Planters um and whatever various uh trees or Arbor we we decide on we'd also will be willing to commit to uh doing
the decorative fence uh that being said uh we would like the board to take into consideration the option of a chaining fence um but if push comes to sh we would be willing to commit to the to the decorative okay thank you Rabbi um I think we had been
through everyone on the board's comments is there anyone who would like to make additional comments after uh after the by statement I I think you do have a few members of the public you might want to just open that up we will have to open the
public okay but no other no other comments from the board so Ju Just Just A clarification we committed like what are we voting on are we committed to not the chain link fence but the decorative chain fence so so I believe the the request was that the board make a motion
and the board can make a motion either to for the decorative fence and if that's what is approved then that the applicant will agree to that but they would also like the board to consider someone making a motion for the portion of the chain link fence and okay
understood thank you any open to the public if you're ready okay SEC and can I get a second a second second okay all in favor I I okay
we now open to the public Miss steiny yes we do have a member please uh Mr Hastings if you please state your name and address for the record uh Peter Hastings 107 Adams Avenue and Riveredge all right
you can go ahead all right uh my view will be of the chain link fent so I would fully uh hope that you don't vote for that um because I'm right across Street where that proposal is and uh I'm against the whole fence in general and I I think
that uh you know as the rabbi said he there was no credible threat of of any violence I don't think um that there's any difference in schools whether it's Roosevelt Cherry Hill you know think anyone who can do harm uh I don't think the religious
school I there's any evidence that the religious schools or the public schools have any more or less of an incidence of that um so you know would would you consider putting a six fence around on suav or on Boger DAV for our schools here in town yeah I don't think you
would um I you know I've lived here a long time and I I just think again that Kinder K back is not a great looking Road at times and and it really detract from you know my property value and uh you know I really don't think it's going
to deter someone who really wants to do harm and again I think there'll be more traffic and I think you guys should consider that when uh weighing this op one this option but that certainly they should definitely um have some landscaping
or you know no chain link great so all right all right thank you Mr Hastings uh any other members of the public there are other members present so if you like to make a public comment
or ask a question please raise your hand on Zoom now H it doesn't look like it okay uh can I get a motion to closed to the public so so moved any
second second thank you uh all in favor I I we're closed to the public um if there are no other comments or questions uh is there anyone who would
like to entertain a motion on this variance for the Shiva there's no motion I'll make a motion I'll make a motion that I'll move
that we approve the application with the condition that the uh the application substitute a decorative fence in place of a chain link
fence and that reasonable efforts be made to provide adequate Landscaping so that a significant portion of the fencing is I don't know if we want to say
covered or uh obscured from street level screened screen thank you and that doesn't just for clarity that doesn't mean that the entire fence has to be blocked from View and not
visible but that it' be sufficient to cover a substantial portion of the fence what would be considered this is a substantial portion may maybe working with the board planner to come to a a solution I think it was
discussed some trees on the north and south side and then plantings at various intervals along the frontage in the middle yeah I I don't want to say tree specifically because there might be other you know there could be wide wide
bushes I mean this is not something where we have really the expertise on this board but certainly um Mr baren can reach out to and and communicate with the Yeshiva and work with perhaps people in River Edge maybe people who
were on the tree commission uh or other people with expertise in landscaping um I don't want to be too specific because I don't want to be too restrictive um but I think the sense of the board that I'm trying to reflect in
the motion is that there not be a chain link fence and that there be a significant amount of landscaping and that would be my motion um would it again I I guess I am a little concerned on what significant
could mean because it's got a subjective uh feel to it would it be acceptable that as M steiny mentioned that they work with the town planner to come up with an acceptable level of coverage well if I if I can interject
we're all having a hard time understanding what that means so that that task would be delegated to us I'd rather hash that out now frankly just because it because it is a very visible site in RI rdge and we want to get this right right agree if the board approves the application so I if you're going to
approve it we would like some some guidance I don't think we have to pick out the type of plant but the I think a general understanding of of what we're talking about and again one option could be this would be sort of a layered approach where along the sidewalk you could have a few Street trees where
there are none on the North and South segments closer to the fence you could have shrubs or Evergreen plants that for instance one example could be that you plant one every other post or every post for usually the panel uh the width of a
Fed pad is about eight feet so again for instance you could plant one every other to you know for the segments that are I to the roadway that's just one example but but again to say substantially covered I mean that could be interpreted in a number of different way so we don't
have to get we don't have to pick out the plants and and the exact locations but I think a little more guidance would be helpful just so it's it's clear so just just as a just as a thought as an like an illustrative idea if we were to say and again hypothetical right say
Arbor Vite which are the tall thin trees that you see over town if you were to plant one and then leave the space for one and then plant another and then leave space the same amount of space that the one would take every alternate I guess 50% of the the area would be
covered in the end is that fair something like that right you know something that's deer resistant those could have deer but right so so not using not using particularly Arbor Vite and certainly that would be a great uh choice but um if we said
50% of the the the area must be covered and it must be even would that get us to our purpose you could offer a percentage um I'm thinking out La 50 I you I mean it's up to the board I don't want to tell you but come up with a range that I think is
is reasonable I I mean the r they they'd be agreeing to I guess the board is this is your motion right now right so um I guess that was my question to the board then using that idea in your head that it would one play yeah and then the space of the plant would be empty one plant would that be something that the
board would consider 50% just to be the 50% would be a plant at every post I think if it was alternating posts it would be less just because you'd have a 16 foot Gap you know yeah whatever whatever you think so is 50% something that the board would uh is that what I
would say at least 50% maybe instead of a percentage why don't we go with uh based on what Mr Barons is saying saying why don't we say that there must be Landscaping at no less than every other
post along the fence that way we don't have to figure out what's 50% what's 80% what's 40% yeah but a planting could cover a significantly more significantly more space than another planting yeah sure we're talking
about the right kind of plantings stillo I don't want you know a daisy to be planted there and this is a planting not that the rabbi would do that yeah' we have to give them the the actual marching orders I I think something like an evergreen right whether it's a shrub
or a tree would seem to make sense because you know that would provide year round screening right that's the objective versus a shrub that dies to the ground or or something like that so an evergreen and I'm just speaking out of turn here because I put the motion
out so I'm just trying to fill in the gaps here based on what everyone's saying that that we would say that Landscaping would be required very very sorry that I overslept this morning inexcusable I'm just gonna keep talking I don't know who that is uh Landscaping
would be required uh in the form of an evergreen or allseason shrub or bush or tree at intervals of every other post
along the fence does that work much clearer all right so I hope so wrote that down so I had along the sidewalk Street trees and then along the fencing
Evergreen plantings no less than every other post yeah I just I don't want to get technical with you guys but there's three kinds of posts there's corner post there's line post and there's nend post and then there's Gates post I think think we're talking about line posts so
just to clarify line posts okay that's acceptable and Marine I think it was Evergreens plus you know similar substitutes that achieve the same yeah all season all season and and may I may I interject just for one second yes sir because I I
don't believe that there could be any planting in the middle section because of the drop in Gray I I could be wrong Tom you would know better okay um I I think there are areas of the middle section that are much less visible than
other areas so I I would hope we could probably work something out where the visible areas could get some form of reasonable treatment so that would be my with with all we've shared here can we beyond that can we leave that to the discretion of Mr Barn shared if there is a section that
he feels is not needed we're not going to force them to put something that may does absolutely nothing to the front is that fair in in coordination with the board planner um with regard to planting and just to be clear we have an
OnStaff landscape architect so be getting professional expertise on that I am not a landscape AR but in any also so um Marina I'm not sure if when um the rabbi was presenting to us if we named
exhibits those were previously um submitted okay I just want to make sure we get the fence that everyone's thinking of you know that's properly specified the type of fence they did provide a detail of the decorative fencing I think the only
thing that was not confirmed was just the style at the very top of the aluminum fence there were some options but that's but I think these these renderings were new to this hearing uh Marina but you submitted them to the
board previously yeah okay thank you before within the 10 before the 10 days or within correct yes all right so right now we have the motion from Mr feffer to approve with the condition of installation of the
decorative fence along the full Frontage um and then significant or Landscaping of Street trees and Evergreen are similar allseason plantings to be no planted no less than
every other line Post in coordination with the board planner's office right I think just to just to satisfy everyone's concerns who who raised it as a concern that we just put in uh after decorative fence we just put
in specifically not a chain link fence okay we're we're talking about all fence right I mean there's no distinction to be made here all perimeter fencing right will be as you just described that's part of this application yes
okay okay I'll second so that is we have second y Mr gibons miss stying all right Mr Mayor yes Mr or Miss
Bolan yes Mr Craig yes Mr Gibbons yes Mr Kena no Mr some glass yes Mr feffer yes Mr
gotier yes and Mr Salva yes all right the motion passes thank you very much appreciate your consideration thank you thank you thank you thank you for working with us it is appreciated
um that being the end of our agenda I think we can get a motion to close so move yes I don't have anything else okay second Mr Gibbons and second Mr
feffer uh the what day said 312 meeting is closed thank you for your help all in favor everyone oh sorry about that yes good night everyone good night I keep thinking it's up to me good night
everybody good night everybody hi