##VIDEO ID:CZ9sho_Oo3s## call the meeting to order good evening everyone this is the meeting of the municipal land use Board of the burough of Riveredge today is Wednesday November 6 2024 time now is 7:38 PM this meeting of the municipal lanard Board of the burough River Edge is being held remotely and recorded via Zoom due to burough council chambers on availability it is in compliance with the provisions of the open public meetings act and Associated regulations notice of this removed meeting was published in the Bergen Record posted on the front doors of burrow Hall and posted on the Burrow's website the notice included the dial in and login information necessary for public participation and access to this meeting remotely a copy of the agenda for this meeting was made available on the Burrow's website near the posting of the meeting notice and included the dial in and login information during the public comment period of this meeting if you would like to make a public comment please press the raise hand button on Zoom or dial star9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand the board will address You by name or by the last four digits of your telep number you may mute and unmute Yourself by pressing the microphone icon on Zoom or dialing star 6 on your telephone keypad you must state your name and address clearly prior to making a public comment with that I'll turn Miss steinley and ask you kindly call the role hello thank you Mr Mayor here Mr cin here miss Boland absent at the moment Mr merman here Mr Feer here Mr cig is also absent at the moment um Mr Kena here councilman glass yeah and Mr Gibbons is excused and Mr bed is absent also present um we have our board engineer Mr Flores okay thank you for that our first first item on the agenda for this evening is the approval of minutes of our October 23rd 2024 meeting draft set of the me of the minutes was circulated for the board's review prior to this evening's meeting I open it to the board for comment or questions on the draft Mr chairman Mr merman as usual I reviewed the minutes and I find them uh acceptable I have uh not noted any changes or errors you know recommended for approval okay thank you sir any other questions comments from the board okay at this time I'll look for a motion to approve the minutes please so moveed thank you Mr faff there second thank you thank you Mr Cano Voice vote yes that's fine and everyone is eligible okay great all right with that all in favor I I any oppose a stain I'm gain I just didn't have a chance to riew on okay put the record reflect that councilman glass is abstained okay thank you next item on our agenda this evening is under memorialization first item is the Evergreen Medical Group PC resolution granting variance relief for property at 887 Kinder kak road block 206 lot 5.03 uh for approval of a sign draft of the resolution was circulated prior to this evening's meeting open it to the board for comment or questions Mr chairman I also review this memorialization and um I find it uh in order okay thank you sir any comments questions from others on the board okay I'll look for a motion to approve this resolution as draft and and this one um since there were some no votes on the application we can only accept a motion and second from the mayor Mr caslin and Mr feffer so move okay got a first Mr feffer is there a second second next Mr Mayor all right and I'll only call those eligible Mr Mayor yes Mr clyn yes and Mr pepper yes okay the motion passes okay thank you our next item under memorializations this evening applicant is bedos and Liza Yan resolution granting relief for property at 823 bogert road block 118 Lot 10 draft of the resolution was circulated for the board's review and commented earlier prior of the meeting this evening open it to the board for comments or questions on the draft resolution Mr chairman I also reviewed this memorialization and found it acceptable okay thank you sir any other comments questions from the board there being none I look for a motion to approve the resolution is drafted so move thank you Mr faffer is there a second second thank you Mr Mayor all right I'll only call those eligible um Mr Mayor yes Mr Kasten yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes Mr Keno yes and councilman glass yes okay the motion passes okay thank you our final item of memorialization this evening is for Quality home developers LLC a resolution Grant granting application for minor subdivision subject properties 312 web Avenue block 302 12 draft of the resolution was circulated for the board's review prior to this evening's meeting I open it to the board for comments or questions Mr chairman my review of this memorialization I uh find it acceptable as uh written okay thank you Mr mman other members of the board comments questions okay there being none I'll look for a motion to approve please so move thank you Mr Feer there a second there second second thank you Council all right Mr Mayor yes Mr klin yes Mr merman yes Mr peffer yes Mr Keno oops I'm sorry I didn't hear you yes okay and then M uh councilman glass yes thank you the motion passes okay thank you we're going to move now under the discussion category of this this evening's agenda uh briefly uh review the proposed meeting dates for the board's meetings for calendar year 2025 uh the meeting dates as proposed are listed on the agenda comments questions from the board okay so Mr althor I believe you have what you need to move forward at this point yes um I need everybody to approve it because I'm already scheduling into 2025 but nobody can notice until we approve the dates okay I think usually we do a motion to accept the calendar we do okay so if there are no comments on the dates I'll look for a motion to approve these dates as listed go move thank you Mr Cano is there a second second thank you Mr faffer and a Voice vote is fine okay with that uh all in favor hi all any oppose any abstain okay there some passes thank you okay we're going to move into the completeness review section of our agenda this evening first item is for Kevin Ogden property is 192 Adams Avenue block 601 Lot 21 applicant is Seeking a approval for a proposed addition renovation and a front Port Edition for Nono non-conforming improved lock coverage and proposed coverage Miss stying yes thank you um so not directly related to completeness but prior to the this meeting that I reviewed the proof submitted by the applicant and found them to be sufficient for the board to have jurisdiction over the application tonight and we did receive architectural plans a survey and photos of the property as well as a report from the board engineer office and the letter of denial from the zoning officer okay thank you Mr Flores good evening can everybody hear me okay yes okay perfect um yes so um our office uh received the application uh for the addition and renovation from uh from for the for the front Porche Edition our office receive architecture PL uh signed by Mr scottt C Bella architect the survey uh property um signed by uh Morgan engineering and surveying photos of the properties uh the letter of denial from our uh construction official uh we find that the information is uh sufficient for for the board to proceed on the application sorry I'm just having some audio issues here okay so you're all set questions from the board I'm sorry comments on completeness he there be none I'll look for a motion to approve deem the application complete so move Mr chairman Mr M is there a second thank you Mr Cano all right Mr Mayor yes Mr caslin yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes Mr Keno yes councilman glass yes okay the motion passes okay we're g to move now excuse me to our next agenda item this evening this is new business applicant is Kevin Ogden property is 192 Adams Avenue block 601 21 application seeking a proposed addition uh from porch Edition uh and approval of existing non-conforming improved lock coverage and proposed coverages I believe the applicant is here with us this evening good evening folks how are you even good evening hi do you have um somebody with you have a architect with you I'm here yes okay so I'm gonna turn over to miss dley and ask her to do the uh necessar is to get everybody sworn it all right if everyone who's GNA testify could please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes yes yes all right and so we can start with the applicants please state your name spell your last name and provide your address for the record sure I'll start Kevin Ogden ogde en address is 192 Adams AV and River Edge thank you Denise Ogden OG Deen 192 Adam zav River New Jersey 07661 thank you and the architect if you please state your name spell your last name provide your address and the background um and lure to the board yes Scott Bella be L 65 Glenn Avenue Glenrock New Jersey um licensed architect in New Jersey have been uh in good standing for the past 30 years um been in front of many boards throughout ber County uh haven't been in front of River Edge yet but uh tonight's my first um but I do pretty much 95% of my business is residential alterations additions new construction um and that's what I've been doing for the past 30 years any questions from the board as to Mr Bella's qualifications okay thanks sir so folks I'll turn it over to to you I don't know if you if your architect is going to do the presentation but if you would for the board's benefit just uh provide a summary of uh what it is you're planning to do with your uh uh your application here yes um so the ogin are looking to do um several additions to their home one of which is an add a level addition to the rear which is a master suite to add uh additional bedroom to the house the addition in the rear does not require any variances the second addition is a a proposed open front porch which would have a roof over it but it would be an open porch to the to the uh to the elements um that is requiring a lot coverage uh we have a non-conforming lot coverage as it exists today and we are exacerbating that and going a little bit higher because of the porch when we uh originally uh proposed the uh drawings we had two variances that we were proposing one of which was the lot coverage and the other was a front yard setback however that was changed uh due to a change in the the zoning ordinance um and we got a letter from Mr dekin um stating that we only need the one variance I just wanted to clarify that and that one variance is the lot coverage uh where 35% is the requirement and we are asking for 37.8 so the only Edition that we're looking at here this evening then is is the front the front porch Edition that's the only variance we're asking for correct okay okay let me ask uh turn it over to our professionals Mr Flores if I could turn it over to you yes um I have a couple of questions sure the first question will be the are you able to show uh the the the architectural plans I can share my SC please can we see that yes okay and here's here's the floor PL is that what we want to look at yes uh I wanna I want to be able to see sheet I think sheet two this is sheet 82 okay you know what let's go to sheet one sheet uh let's go to sheet A1 zoning yeah yeah yeah go to zoning I would like to go to the plot plan yes um so the existing deck just just just for records uh the the one uh the one that is on the rear uh uh under the property correct that one right there is uh is that an open lates uh deck it is a compacted deck what's this can you describe it's a wood deck um that is um I believe it's made out of TX and it has uh open Flow so rain flows right through the deck and what's underneath um I have to defer I'd have to defer to my client on that I'm not sure what's underneath it's a very low get under there it's just it's all soil okay um if you go back to your uh building and structure and previous calculations to the left um and if you go on footage of the deck and you have take 75% of credit which was one of my comments on our review letter um so just to help you right there and for clarification of the board um you are allowed to take n you're not it's not 75 reduction of the number like you took 20 8625 as a noral number you were supposed to take the difference so your number actually decreases um so instead of you taking the 8625 our resolution RIS that if for example you have 100 fet and 100 fet like I'm going to read that exactly from the resolution so if 100 square foot de with an open joints and no Imperial surface below is proposed the L coverage calculation will be 25 square feet so instead of you using 86 you could have used uh I think it's 28.25 which which which that number which the Imperial coverage 37. can you know can actually be brought up to 36.9 so so we' be in better shape with the with a new correct and correct and I want to point it out also that because of the ordinance uh change uh um recently to allow 5% uh 5% um imperior coverage for amenities and you already have a partio uh so now and and since you existing non your existing nonconformity lot coverage is 36.5 so the differ now is going to be a .4% so that's something maybe you can give away for a piece a small piece of sidewalk which is roughly 31 square feet and then you're going to be in compliance so the bance will go away so I would have to defer to my client on that one um 31 Square ft is U you know roughly you know 3x10 area right and and I'm sorry the recommendation would would be to uh remove that and then there would be no variance and then there you you will be back you will be back to your existing nonconformity which is 3650 that's just just pointing that out there um another thing I wanna I want to point it out is that I I guess you already I mean we can if we can go over our review letter there were a couple of mistakes on your sunny chart uh I just want to point it out out that for example the front jar on Adams Avenue yes you you have 34.5 in reality is 3060 and it's because um let me see I'm sorry Adams let me just confirm that Adams Adams Adams correct so it's so okay you have 3450 and I think it's because I'm I'm not sure but I think it's a mistake on the scale because when we bring the scale from the survey it measures the different number the same thing with the side yard you have the side yard pointed out at 7.5 the drawing when you the drawing shows 7.5 when you take the scale literally and you put it on the on the on the survey which shows one to 20 scale it shows us a seven so I'm not sure if that's a printer error or is could it could be my printer just prints a little bit off I mean at that scale it's probably you know minuscule oh yeah I I would like to get a clarification on that just to make sure that you know we put that on the record yeah no problem well I'll I'll reflect the uh any new numbers I'll check the scale uh several times and get it accurate yes okay um um I have any other comments any other comments St War management um for stor War management um that's something that you know I just I'm going to put that to a record I want to tell the board that that's something that we can take care of under the soil movement uh cuz oh no I'm sorry you're not going to need soil movement permanent this not at all no not at all yeah and now um I'm going to defer that to the board based on my recommendation because technically it's uh you know the the you know you already have an imperious coverage so you're technically not adding anything to it so that might be something that that can be wave uh but you know I will defer that for the board because in reality you're going to be going back to the if you decide to take the 30 square feet of of you know of sidewalk of anything you decided you decide to give that away and then you're going to go back to the existing nonconformity so nothing has changed you know on that on that coverage right um other than that I don't have any other question for you okay just just just to clarify for for your for your your client I think we just did the ad ramp in the corner right I'm sorry say that again I believe that just did the ad r on the on the corner of sidewalk the all right I I don't have any other question okay thank you Mr Flores let me turn to the board now for questions um Mr Casten Mr Mayor so I I'm just wondering if I understood um Jason correctly Mr Costa's office correctly if the Cent If the uh applicant removes the 3x10 or the 30 extra feet then this is no longer uh a matter for the board because all the V there are no variances is that correct then we'll go back oh I'm sorry so so they wouldn't require any variances but they may want wish to just record the existing non-conformities like the the set front yard setback and the existing non-conform loot coverage but then this this body would not have the ability to approve or disapprove we'd simply have the ability to record the um the existing conditions correct in other words we could not vote it down um well the applicant could AG could request that to withdraw the application um or just ask that the board confirm um the existing conditions but the board doesn't have to confirm the existing conditions now okay that's what I thought so I'm my question then is to the applicant and the architect for a sake of expediency do you wish to continue with this application do you wish to um make the reduction so that there would then only be the question of uh recording uh the non conformities um so perhaps uh Mr Bella and Mr Ogden and Mrs Ogden you might want to step away for a second and decide that before we spend a lot of time talking about something that maybe we don't need to talk about sure we'll take that opportunity just give us a couple minutes sure oh I'm sorry Mr chairman you g to call me guys yeah we'll call you yes okay don't forget to we'll we'll just take a brief recess yeah but we'll we'll recess for let's see it's 802 uh let's come back at uh come back gu 8 810 give you enough time to talk okay that that sounds good thank you take a motion to to recess second all in favor hi any We Stand adjourned recess until 8:10 p.m. okay let's call the meeting back to order thank you for that all right I will just do a roll um for the return to from the recess Mr Mayer here Mr caslin here Mr merman here Mr feffer here Mr Keno here and councilman glass yeah all right all members are present okay so Mr Bella um yeah any yes so we spoke um and my initial reaction was 30 sare feet no problem but then when we dove into it and we looked at the actual site it seems we have a small little walk in the front which we want to keep you know to as for safety to get from the the driveway to the door and then the only other way around to the back of the building is either on the grass to the left hand side on Elm or there's a concrete walk that allows us to get from the front to the back so to lose 30 square feet we're basically going to have to take away half of that which I think would be um you know difficult in terms of you know walking on grass and the mud that kind of thing if it's raining so uh I think we decided that we'd like to ask for the variance okay very good and just to clarify Jason the the new variance with the discount for the um for the deck what would be the lck coverage oh sorry you're on mute I have it at uh so they were asking for 3780 and it will be 36.9 um 36.9 3 let round It Up 36.9 4 okay thank you okay so let me go around the board quickly uh Mr Mayor any further questions you're muted I may Mr castlin but not at this time I I'd like a moment to think about you know C can can can we I'm sorry I had a little background sound here could the new number be given again so so I believe it was originally proposed at 37.8% but the new number is 36.9 four% with the the B with the uh credit and I guess I do have some questions um is this this 36.9 includes the back yard right yes and how much of the 36.7 is the backyard is it 5% is it 7% is it what is it when you say the backyard you mean the the stuff that's paved in the backyard yeah yeah what's P in the back I would say it's roughly about 40% is in the back of the paved area no I meant if it's 36.9 4 how much much of the 36.9 4 is um is not the house is not the house um amenities that are ground surface coverings yeah so what percentage is the deck and patio of the of the improved loot coverage so the deck um percent is let's see bear with me one second the deck is uh 1 and a half% and the patio 87 is 5.2% which makes 6.75 correct yeah and you're over by 6.94 we're we're we're over by uh I'm sorry you're over by 1.94 correct yes um no further questions thank you okay Mr feffer I have no questions thank you thank you Mr Keno I have no questions thank you thank you uh councilman no questions thank you thank you uh Mr merman it was a mention of a front yard setback for Elm Avenue is that still in play or did that disappear there there is no front yard setback required uh under this application okay that that's for L both for both Adams and Elm right yeah well you said Adams was okay before okay so so so that's all right my other question is um there was a mention of waivers um I think um Mr Jason um do you mention waivers at one point yes so if they decided to get rid of the 30 square feet Yes you know they will they will get a waiver on the stor War management but because that's not the case anymore they will have to comply with the stor Water Management they will have to put M pit in order just to uh maybe to put the you know the proposed the Second Story Edition and quick it back into the backyard right so at that at this point that's in play yes okay um there was one more uh I guess that's about it um so let me let me re review this from a like coverage standpoint I'm looking at variances now for a l coverage standpoint the the required is um 35.0 the existing is 36.5 and the requested is 36. N4 those numbers correct that's correct okay um likewise there was some discussion of of listing or recognizing the existing nonconformities uh such as a water area um um and I guess that was about it is is that still is that still in play I I would recommend that the at least the front yard setback along Elm and Adams be recorded because the front porch is going to be extending that non-conforming non-conformity along Elm although it's it's staying the same it's it's making it a little bit longer okay I'm making some notes Here recog noise that now the elm side or the atom side Marena Elm side okay I believe okay because the FR it I'm looking at the survey I thought the front door with the front porch was on the atom side yeah but the um oh so I I meant that the 203 foot front yard setback in on Elm Avenue is being lengthened you know okay so so which is it is we got to recognize Elm or Adam I think both for the front yard setbacks okay okay um Adam now Mr Jason you somewhere in your report mention um some minor things like the roof um top of the porch roof uh I guess we could call it the ridge um was higher than the second floor I believe or something like that do we need to get into that wa yes so we will have to ask you know the architect on that yes um let me just which which I read somewhere here right here let me see one second which comment was that purose all right so that was comment number five um no that's not comment number five Miss mer which which which comment are you reading at um I I'm doing it for memory at this point I can speak I can speak to the heights if you if you like please yes so the addition in the back back is not going to exacerbate at all the existing height of the building which is at 26.6 I'm sorry 26 Fe 6 in where 30 is the requirement we're not going above and beyond the existing ridgel line so that is going to remain at no change in terms of the building height and the porch itself is only going to be a one-story porch and it's going to have a small shed roof that would uh come underneath the second floor window so the total height on that is roughly around 12 feet 10 in high okay um I'm quickly I'm trying to look in in um the CER engineering report and I don't see it off hand it's comment number one it was comment number one so it's actually the first comment that you were referring to the first story all right so is it still valid no yes maybe Mr Scott I'm sorry what was the question uh I mean if you do you have the report in front of you I do yes uh can can you can you take a look at it number one and maybe it clarify for Mr McMan uh the you mean the covered porch and awnings can go no more than six feet into the setback correct and then there's a little comment there that says additionally appears the existing porch High exed the first story of the building so it's not necessarily it's only a one story story uh porch and it doesn't go up past the second floor at all it comes underneath the windows of the second floor and that's only because we need to have a a slope on the roof line and the minimum height is going to be required at around 8 ft so we have the head room um and that little slope gets us up to a total of 12 foot 10 in so again it's only a one story The Porch itself so would it be safe to say that there's no problem there mror correct okay good so we eliminate that I all right I I think that's it for me okay I have uh I have no comments for the or questions on the uh for the applicant or the architect so at this point I'll look for motion open to public or like before we do that do we have anybody in in the uh public this evening Miss stying there are no members um attendees okay so we can dispense with that uh yep there being none we can close we don't need to open yeah we'll uh we'll move along any final comments questions from the board on the application all right in that case I will look for a motion motion from the board on this application please Mr chairman let me try to start to piece one together here this might be a uh effort of others also on the board okay regarding the uh The hden Residence at 192 Adams Avenue River Edge New Jersey um block 601 Lot 21 that land the B Rivage land use uh board Grant variance for lck coverage which um normally is required a 35 um percent the existing is noted the laot coverage at 36.5 and the request for this application is 36. N4 those are those numbers are require are those numbers correct yes yes okay um the uh do we have any uh we got to recognize the front yard setback um along uh the existing along Adams Avenue is that correct Mar yes okay but I would recommend okay and and we need to issue a waiver for the storm water management Provisions I believe that's what we decided like likewise the Apple can Will um conf to um CER engineering General uh comments regarding uh um water sewage um es GRS and so forth that's all I have somebody wants a build on that be my guess I'm done you're done just clarification if I may ask you said we were is issuing a waiver on storm water I thought they would still have to comply with storm water well there was discussion I heard that there was going to be a w issue for storm water management because of the DI minous um amount that was what I no I don't think that's what we said I think there was I I clarify this yes correct so they will they will they will request a waiver they will be able to get rid of that 21 square feet but since they're proceeding with it they they need a CP right so no waiver no that motion to to remove the waiver or ask Mr so that that's fine I'll accept that okay okay that's why I said we're building this together um I I I also added the usual M Custer engineering comments regarding uh um o oer [Music] and other other items okay that's that's it that's what I got that's what you have okay is there a second second second I think I Mr K on a second just before you so miss stying all right thank you Mr Mayor yes Mr caslin yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes Mr Keno yes councilman glass yes the motion passes okay thank you everyone congratulations much thank you so much thank you good luck with the project thank you very much for everybody's time welcome enjoy have a good night thank you okay we're going to move now into the old business section of our agenda this evening this is a continuation of an application from our hearing on September 11th 2024 the applicant is uh Miss y Jong Kim property is 254 Midland Avenue Block 105 Lot 12 this is an application for proposed attach garage and driveway good evening folks I think we have the applicant and uh looks like the professional as well so architect okay Mr castlin Mr Mayor I regret I was not able to review the previous night's work uh I mean um so would my presence here be required if not I will um I will leave if not uh but if it is I will remain I think we're just at a quorum at the moment Miss styley correct yes okay so then I'll be glad to stay okay thank you thank you so I'm going to turn it over to back to the applicant Miss sty if you just kindly remind them the applicant they're still uh under oath yes thank you so at the prior hearing the application was deemed complete um and we swore in Mr Santini the architect um and Mr Park the architect uh from the architect's firm as well as um as fact Witnesses Charles Park the applicant and um M um Kim the applicant Miss Kim and then the two real representatives from the real estate agency I'm not sure if I see them tonight uh they're behind us but I mean do they need to be on the camera or o or you'll just remain under oath tonight so anything you say will also be sworn testimony tonight okay okay all right okay um so we can get we can get started okay so Mr Santini if you could uh from the board's benefit uh bring us up to speed on the revisions to your application good evening ladies and gentlemen Martin Santini uh for the applicant I have been sworn at the uh September meeting um and I just want to reiterate um that at that meeting the board members and the board's professionals made some recommendations uh regarding the two variances that we were requesting and the applicant has taken those recommendations to heart and we have developed a way to reduce both the lot coverage and the um the um building coverage um even though it wasn't significant it was an attempt you asked us to remove some of the sidewalk and existing pervious surfaces which we gladly did we also reduced the size of the garage by a foot uh we reduced the size of the driveway we've added uh permeable pavers and I believe that this application is much more in compliant with the requirements of the zoning ordinance in the burrow R River Edge and I would respectfully request that uh you ask or you consider granting us an approval on this application based on the comments and the changes that we made um there are also um some benefits that will ACR to the municip py of course um there will be uh of course I mentioned the geoblock environmental pavers that will be installed and there is going to be two new parking spaces where there are zero parking spaces now there will be two off street parking spaces bringing this project much more uh in Conformity um I think that the the changes that we made and I think that um that the um applicant has made every effort we feel that the uh approval of this application will not be detrimental to the intent and purpose of the Zone plan the zoning ordinance or the public good and therefore Mr chairman I would respectfully request uh you guys um cast a favorable boote on this and I'm happy to answer any questions that the applicant or its professionals may have you perhaps detail for the board's benefit the revisions that have been made to your plans I'm sorry sir say that again could you go into detail the revisions that you have made to your plans for the board yes I certainly can do that okay so as regards the lot uh uh the maximum lot coverage we were we were at um the the uh the lot coverage for the building before we were at 32.3 4% we were requesting where of course 25% is allowed we've reduced that down to 31.728217 45.5% before and it's now 41.7 n% so we've reduced that down by 3.7% okay those are the only revisions you've made to the two yes sir plans okay uh let me turn it over to Mr Flores if I may uh so originally the first application uh did not pro you know just just to fill everybody in so it's because um it didn't proceed uh to get a a vote it was with the survey do not match existing conditions so we did not accurate have the uh correct uh lad coverage and you know improv lad coverage uh now the applicant submitt a revised architecture plan showing the existing conditions uh as today and he has revised uh the square footage and have taken consideration the recommendations of uh you know uh of adding environmental paper driveway which brings uh those variances uh to a lesser degree uh not to mention also that um the lad is an undersized lad uh where you know uh require 7500 and they are like 5750 square feet um other than that the only comment that I have is uh based on my review letter that uh we noticed that there is a couple of uh of roof leaders going down into the ground which we have no record where they go so I would like to ask the architect to clarify that um Mr Flores the best of my knowledge those go into a a seepage pit um other than that I I can't give you any Tech technical information other than what the applicant has told me uh and that is the condition when she purchased the property and it hasn't been uh a problem in the community there hasn't been any negative impact from any flooding or anything like that uh on that particular property or is for that much for that fact that any other properties in the immediate area there are several catch basins at the end of Willow Street there's a corner catch Basin at the corner of uh Midland um I think the street drainage is adequate and um other than that I think the rest of the the application is is as it is existing um and there is no uh no no need to change anything as far as I can tell um just to put out out on the record uh maybe you can ask your client uh do do you know what kind of cish P they install there what kind of what Jason what kind of CP P like it was like a you know like a Peerless concrete chamber it was like a plastic contact will take yeah maybe maybe Mrs Kim has knowledge of that when she purchased was there any information that was provided we purchased the property based on as is I don't I'm not quite sure what Mr uh Florence is asking quite to be honest with you okay so what I'm what I'm referring to is that the roof lead GES into ground and we just want to make sure that it's not connected to the sanitary Shore and it's properly connected to a cish pit yeah so CP is in concrete so not sure um Mr Flores I think the best best understanding is that it is an existing condition uh there is there is no indication that the sanitary line and the roof leader line are interconnected that'll bring rainwater into the uh Municipal sewer um my lot other than that I you know I I I seen just to the board I I I Mr stina has corrected uh uh most of the issues arise you know rais in last meeting and I don't have any other further questions on that okay thank you Mr Flores uh go to the board for questions Mr feffer can I start with you I have no question questions thank you okay thank you uh Mr Mayor no questions thank you okay councilman no questions thank you okay Mr Keno yeah um at the last meeting I think uh as I recall we had talked briefly about the old wooden walkway uh on the side of the house and that it had been perhaps changed uh and you were going to provide us with permits to show that you came to the town uh and you requested permits to make that change which is more impervious coverage as well so were you able to provide us those permits uh that is beyond my scope yes they were they were provided those permits for the walkway yes they were um they were um they were provided with the revised plans and the the permit was issued April 8th 2024 for the sidewalks the permits I went through that was plumbing and electrical I didn't see for the walkway I saw a sidewalk this that that was the walkway because I see on the permit it says sidewalk and then right underneath it says walkway so if that's not a walkway it's certainly not a sidewalk so what what is it maybe the applicant could explain a little bit more the permits that were provided um I'd be happy to provide a guesstimate but I'm not sure that I fully understand we were told that the concrete walkway that was on the Northerly side of the subject property was to be removed um and I believe that that is the condition and I believe that you I don't think it's the north side well it's I'm sorry it's the east side I apologize okay I'm just looking at the map upside down it's on the talking about the old wooden walkway that is now a a paved walkway I'm asking whether permits were obtained for that not for sidewalks for the walkway that was changed and I believe that the that the applic I believe that the permits were legally issued that's correct okay so I'm asking my professionals now here as long as this is fine I'm not accusing anybody of doing anything a toward but what I see here is a sidewalk permit I don't see a walkway permit and I'm asking specifically about the walkway now if the sidewalk permit is for the walkway and it was Miss uh marked okay so that's the answer but if they didn't if they got if they did work on the sidewalk and they also decided to put in a walkway that also changes this conversation because we're well over that 40% threshold that we don't like to talk about that we've used in the past so it it makes a difference that I'm I'm not sure and the zoning permit notice that we have in that was provided is marked as sidewalk um I'm not sure if that is was mislabeled as the walkway that switched from the board the wooden boards to the paved um area but maybe the applicant could explain what the permit is for Miss Kim um and just a second just to second that I I you know just to second that I I agree with Marina that the permit is not clear so I to my understanding it looks like it is for both of them now so uh but like I say the applicant can confirm that as well I'm to get a a sidewalk quick so she thought that initially I guess when she got a permit for the sidewalk that just changed the woods on the you know from the sidewalk to the entrance she thought was okay so she wasn't she's not quite sure yeah I appreciate I appreciate that answer and it's an honest answer so the permit itself was for the sidewalk that she installed it wasn't for the walkway right yeah yes okay do we know how much square footage the walkway adds to uh the house as far as impervious coverage is concerned Jason I don't have that number with me it says 68 square feet on the on the site drawing Mr Flores but that's that's something that's that's you're going to remove that 68 square feet correct yeah yes that's and then you're going to you're going to remove to the West you're going to remove 68 square feet of that new you know um wood walkway that was installed and then also on the on the E side you're going to move another 100 square feet of little concrete cycle leading to the to the back correct yes right and the only portion that is going to remain is just going to be the it's going to be is that going to be a new proposed walkway around the house or that's that's already been built that's already existing oh that's already existing there okay um I'm not sure if everybody have the latest uh architecture plan but um I don't know if uh Mr Santini you can maybe just show that on your computer uh for clarity um I I can I I I don't know that we have that okay uh if everybody can refer to a one of one Jason can you share your screen and we can just uh yeah maybe I can do that give me one second maybe I can do that uh you know I'm from my phone let me see if I can do really quick this somebody somebody's doing it now let me see I'm going to sign in really quick so I can share my screen ready BR one second so just to clarify the walkway that I'm talking about is that being removed and uh it's it's considerable being removed it is it is it is that removed we're still at 40 to uh Mr Santini specify was that you know you're taking off stre parking and you put in you know you're taking you know parking out of the street and then you actually Implement that into into into the property um I got oh perfect um if you if you see Mr Santini is removing the wood the wooden uh walkway now he have a hatchet and you refer portion of the paper to be removed 68 square feet which is at the bottom of it maybe somebody can yep right to the to the west of or right to the south of the driveway there's an X Out area of the walkway that's to be removed 68 square feet and then the walkway to the east of the home that connects to Midland Avenue is going to be removed that's 100 100 square feet and then there is another portion of papers to be removed which is leading to the stairs on the back of the property as well right 53 Square ft correct correct so all that is being removed so uh so yeah so most of most of it has being removed uh I'm not sure I'm not sure if the paper behind the the house existed prior to it or not based on the Google Earth that we have uh you know of the image that we have it looked like it was there before so um so yeah so so yeah so it look like they have some kind of walkway behind the property existing so most of the things that they added has been removed and you know just a second um Marina's uh comment regarding the the sideway permit you know there is a little comment underneath that says walkway and it's confusing so you we have to ask um who is with perit I think it's the building department right the building department we have to ask the building department I think I think she got the permit for the sidewalk and then they put in the walk okay okay yeah it is what it is cuz they're removed moving it so it's not it's not an issue anymore but okay in the future I'm sure the homeowner is aware that any work has to really go through the town and that's what's important for people to know uh look I don't have any further questions I'm a little I'm I'm caught up with this uh number but I also appreciate the fact that it's an undersized lot so I'm going to give some thought uh and I'm going to listen to everybody else's uh comments thank you okay thank you Mr Keno Mr merman yes um Jason can you put that um drawing one of one back on on your [Music] screen I who was sharing that before that was me hold on yeah [Music] me you talking the zoning table Mr merid Excuse me the zoning table no I want to see uh drawing a a one of one you had the new the portion you were showing was the new uh proposed uh layout oh sorry I'm looking I'm going to share my screen right now I got it up oh somebody okay somebody it up already all right but what you have is good um on the North property line there's looks like a tree with a bubble around it can you zoom in I can't I can't read what what it says yep okay yeah it says Benchmark nail in tree elevation 104.2 one ft that that that's fine that's fine okay that's good that answers my question okay thank you you're welcome the uh that is the only question I have um I would like to review um the U the the items for the emotion uh right now building coverage wise uh we have 25% with six I believe it is existing and the new coverage being 31.7 those num2 you're correct it's my scribble um from a lot coverage standpoint it's a 35% um required minimum and existing is 34.8 is that existing existing sir is 36.5 2% and the proposed is 42. 36% got that read read the existing again please 36 52 52 okay for that out now um on the accessory building apparently we require a um um a setback of what's been labeled as a front yard setback from Willow Avenue um normally we require 30 feet and I believe your drawing shows 18.0 is that correct yes that's correct sir we're asking for that variance uh since it is an accessory building and the U uh the balance of the building does comply with the rest of the ordinance it does not exceed your height requirements and uh it is set back from the dwelling properly and it will uh be an added addition that will be aesthetically pleasing and be part of the uh architectural character of the existing house okay very good that answers my question so in summary we have two coverages one building coverage and one the lot coverage and for the accessory building we've got a front yard setback of a yes since this is a since this is a corner lot it has two front yards that's correct I I yes I understand that okay so that's and you did not widen out the uh the uh driveway uh in front of the uh the driveway in front of the garage is unchanged otherwise correct well actually we re we reduced it down it was 15 feet it is now 13 feet okay very good good so you did show an effort so other than that we have a formity with the usual Coster engineering General comments and that right now is my motion uh that I put before my board members to see if they want hold on we're little getting a little ahead of ourselves here but hold that thought if you would we're we gotta go through one a couple of other items here real quickly all right any other questions for for the applicant Mr Murman for I just have two questions question for Mr Flores before we we move on no no I'm I'm done okay so Mr Flores two questions for you your review letter shows the improve or calculates the lock coverage at 34.871778 [Music] [Music] uh to the fact that one second one second I just give me one minute I just realized let me see they say in comment number three we have 3487 say the existing L covers The Zing table providing shet one of the architecture plan is incorrect they should revise the current address is coming um I will have to we would be stand corrected Jason if that's the case because we uh we we we thought these figures were absolutely correct from our let me I will have to I will have to take five minutes just to confirm that number I I don't have it in front of me right now just to confirm that it's 3487 or were correct okay while you're doing your math just one other quick question before you head on to that um there's soil movement required on this this application so the storm water um mitigations would get picked up in that process correct correct yes because they're going to be doing a new foundation for the garage and the driveway correct they're going to need so more on this okay so let me allow you to go do your necessary calculations that's still I have no further questions um so Marina we still don't have anybody in the uh public for that's correct there still are no attendees still no no one in the public okay so that being the case we will dispense with the um obligation to open for public comment um while Mr Flores continues his calculation any other questions or comments from the board on the application I I did have I'm sorry you can go ahead councilman I should have raised my hand um I it's not really a question I just want to confirm if there's any um tree removal required and there is obviously that the applicants can comply with the borrow requirements related to that there are no no trees to be planned to be removed uh under this application and um the applicant will requ will comply with all of Costa engineering requirements thank you Miss sty you had a comment oh yes um so I was just doing the math um for the maximum lot coverage on the as proposed it's 2,436 square fet if the lot were conforming at 7500 Square F feet that would only amount to 32.4% coverage so it's just something to consider um since this lot is very small so you you did you did the propor adjustment on that yeah just if if the same amount of coverage were on a 7500 sare foot lot then there would be no need for the the variance okay thank you Jason right uh I'm just just to me add one more number um I I'm going to I'm going to confirm that the number Mr C's number is correct and our number on our regulator is incorrect uh we took the credit for the papers and that was not supposed to be taken u i I'm gonna correct myself on that um correct the correct number is 3652 okay so so as it's shown in the plans that's the that's the correct number okay very good than any further comments questions from the board Mr Flores if you're good um no I'm good I just I was going to point that out as well that if this would be like a a a a regular s l site they will not require any variance okay very good with that I will look to the board for a motion on the application please okay regarding get my papers here regarding the Residence at 254 Midland area Block 105 L 12 borrow River for a proposed detach garage and driveway um I make a proposal that the land use for or to borrow River Grant release for building coverage which is normally uh 25% minimum to um 262 is that um existing and it's now going to be 31 now proposed 31.728217 [Music] likewise uh relief be granted for the accessory building uh set back on Willow Avenue which normally is 30% 30 feet required and propos at 18.0 feet and that's a for the accessory building um furthermore that the Coster engineering normal comments uh regarding uh the standard uh standard comments be included in the uh in the in the uh Motion in the motion okay are those numbers correct Jason the numbers I read are correct those are the correct ones yes okay thank you Miss chairman that's all I have to offer towards a motion at this point okay is there a second second thank you Mr kigo M sty yes one moment all right um the mayor Mr Mayor I think is going to abstain I abstain Mr caslin yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes uh Mr kigo yes and councilman glass yes okay the motion passes thank you everyone congratulations thank you luck thank you very much for your don't forget to pull the soul movement permit okay so that takes us to the end of our agenda this evening unless anyone else says anything to discuss if not I'll look for a motion to close and turn move thank you Mr Keno is there a second second thank you councilman all in favor I I any oppose a stain We Stand adjourned we're now closed at 900 pm on the nose what wow record everyone thank you everyone great evening take care good night correct there's no meeting on the 20th Yep that meeting was canceled so we'll see you in December okay good night Happy Thanksgiving everyone Happy Thanksgiving good night good night