let's call the meeting to order good evening everyone this is the meeting of the municipal lus board for the burough Riveredge it is Wednesday June 26 2024 time now is 7:32 p.m. this meeting of the municipal luse Board of the burough River Edge is being held remotely and recorded via Zoom due to burough counil Chambers on availability and is in compliance with the provisions of the open public meetings act and Associated regulations notice of the remote meeting was published in the Bergen Record posted on the front doors of burrow Hall and posted on the Burrow's website the notice includes uded 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 bur'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 telephone number you may mute and unmute Yourself by pressing 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 um one housekeeping item we're going to have a 9:45 p.m. curfew this evening and with that I will ask Miss styley to call the role thank you um the mayor is excused tonight Mr clyn here miss Boland here Mr merman here Mr feffer I think he might be running late um Mr Cay here uh Mr Keno also said he might be running late uh counc and glass is excused tonight Mr Gibbons is excused he's excused yep and Mr bed here all right also present Mr Barons our board planner Mr Mr cost our board engineer and Mr dekin our zoning officer okay thank you Miss styley first item on our agenda this evening is the approval of minutes from our meeting of June 12th 2024 uh draft set of the minutes was circulated to the board for review prior to this evening's meeting and open it to the floor for comments or questions Mr chairman Mr merman uh due to my travel I did not um have a chance to review the minutes so I'll have to yield on that okay um I did review them I did not have any comments I don't if anybody else on the board had comments or questions none all right there being none I will look for a motion to approve the minutes as presented show me think Mr merman on a first second and Mr cray in a second on just do a Voice vote all in favor hi any oppose any abstain Mr bed was absent Mr bued okay so mark that for the record okay uh we're going to move on on our next agenda item this evening under memorializations we have a resolution recommending adoption of ordinance number 24-14 amending chapter 350 site plan review and chapter 46 zoning of the River Edge burrow code a draft of the resolution was circulated to the board for review prior to this evening's meeting and I open it to the board for comment or questions Mr bar yes Mr um this is the second go around on this um on this uh ordinance has there been any changes since the last time we we reviewed it no no I think the last time it was uh reviewed at the board level we had done the master plan consistency review the board generally found it consistent with the master plan so this is merely the confirmation of that finding to be submitted to the council okay so where we're basically we're um we're saying that it still meets the ask the plan and it's good to go to the mayor and Council for their finalization is that correct once it goes to the mayor and Council they'll have the opportunity to adopt the ordinance you know balls in their court at that point right right so M Mr chairman no other members have comments I'll be ready to make a motion regarding the ordinance okay um Mr merman wasn't at the last meeting where we oh no he was think never mind I had that right sorry about that that's okay no problem you want to get rid of me H all right sorry and for the record Mr feffer has joined us it's at 7:37 PM good evening Mr feffer good evening my apologies for being late not at all uh Mr Feer we're at the point in the agenda we're talking about the memorialization of the resolution uh recommending adoption of uh uh the ordinance of on site plan review and Zoning uh that was part of our discussions previously I think in the last meeting that was consistent with the uh the master plan thank you if um if there are no other comments from the board I will look for a motion on the resolution please so Mr chairman um since uh there apparently is no new changes and we've already um confirmed that um the The Proposal meets the intent of the master plan I will recommend that the board members recommend approving it and sending this to the mayor and Council for their final uh um for the final approval okay so we will take that as a motion is there a second correct second thank you Miss poan Miss sty when you're ready thank you Mr klin yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes Mr cig yes all right the motion passes okay thank you everyone we're going to jump down in our agenda this evening to Old business applicant is Jack bertini property is 831 Kinder KAC Road this is block 206 lot 9.02 proposed non-conforming to family dwelling seeking D variance relief in a C1 Zone I believe the applicant and Council are present this evening good evening Mr Barrett good evening Mr caslin um we don't know if Mr chigo was coming or not coming correct correct may I ask for the Indulgence of the board to give me five minutes to talk to both Mr brutini as well as Mr uh molan regarding the fact that there are only six members present uh and that their applications require five votes that's correct I just you know I didn't anticipate it and we didn't discuss that potential sure all right I'll just gonna call them and I'll be right back all right we but first I have to remember to mute I didn't do that last time all right for the for the record uh let's adjourn for 5 minutes at 7:40 p.m. we'll reconvene at 7:45 there do just a motion and a Voice vote can I get a motion for that please from someone I moved thank you Mr CRA is there a second second all in favor I any oppose any abstain okay thank you we'll come back at 7:45 H my phones I put it over here put it on silent e e e e oh I take than right I think you should just go for the bo okay bring everyone back in so Marina just out of curiosity I get this message that the host wants me to unmute do you send that or oh that was yeah that was me oh because I because I didn't have a a taskbar or whatever you call it to allow me to do it oh who knows anyway um Mr chairman I I've discussed the both my clients we hold on Mr Barett we got to re re uh restart things here I'm sorry I apologize no problem no problem let's just make sure we get everybody back I think we've got yeah yep all right okay recall the meeting to order again it's 7:46 PM Miss styley would you call the roll please yes Mr Klan here miss Boland here Mr merman here Mr Feer here Mr C here Mr B here all right all members are present okay I think we have our professionals back as well uh Mr Barrett turn the floor to you yes sir so on 831 um we were tasked at the last meeting with making uh some revisions to the plans uh those revisions were in fact made uh and uh submitted to the board they were initially submitted and then resubmitted again at the end of last week based on conversation I had with uh Mr Barons um and those revisions included um better labeling of the landing at the rear of the home uh which provides the entrance to both the basement and then stairs up to the first floor the uh there had been some inconsistency between the uh site plan uh that Mr kufel had originally on the plan that's been replaced with the most recent survey um prepared by Mr lantel uh and that in fact showed all of the improvements that currently exist on the property including uh the U including shows the uh proposed window well uh that provides the second means of egress from the basement there was a request that the spiral staircase on the second floor be removed that has been removed circular St a spiral yeah that's been removed also a note's been added uh that there will be a fold down ladder to access the attic which is solely going to be used for storage and uh that has been so noted as well it's open and it's for storage only the uh egress windows have been uh marked uh again there was a concern about a second means of egress from the second floor so that's been uh outlined and then um we do have an exhibit that we would like uh to be considered by the board that was uh sent out this afternoon and that was a clarification on the parking area uh Mr Costa in his report had requested that so mlen engineering prepared a sketch showing the parking spaces is showing the handicap space um and it will lead to a minor change in that a portion of a wall which is actually crumbling is going to have to be removed to accommodate the parking and provide sufficient backup um for for the area um I can have if you'd like uh if the board would like we can certainly have the uh architect testified to those changes that were made or simply if the board would simply like to question him or the applicant uh regarding those changes uh we also though have a h planner with us tonight who would would be our Final witness unless of course as I say you have questions for um the architect or or the applicant himself thank you Mr bar let me turn first to u to our professionals uh Mr Baron sorry I got booted off for a moment there um welcome back I heard most of it though so I guess I'll just reiterate so as far as new application materials we have an updated property survey which appears to be accurate it reflects a new interior walkway and appears to satisfy uh or again accurately depict all the existing conditions we have updated architectural plans which depict all of the revisions that Mr Barrett uh mentioned as well as the the uh features mentioned in our latest memo and Mr kasa's office's lat latest memo um as well as a site plan that I believe was submitted today or is being submitted as an exhibit so um Mr Barett maybe that's a good uh place to start off is just showing the that exhibit the new site plan and just you know going over I don't I don't think we got very far the last time around so I think we might have to refresh the board's memory a bit okay um so we're going to mark this exhibit as A1 and just note we'll need assigned copy eventually Mr Barrett correct and and in fact assuming um I never assume in the event the board uh looks favorably upon the application we would ask um that as a condition of the approval that we comply with the other engineering requirements set forth in Mr Costa's report and we would have Mr mlen prepare those um you know the applicants not knowing uh how the board is going to act on the application did not want to have drainage plans drawn for something that may never occur um but I know in the past the board has uh made that a condition of approval and we are uh absolutely willing to comply with all of the uh concerns engineering concerns that Mr Costa has raised um but I think the primary one is the issue of drainage and uh somewh sking over it am I yeah storm I'm sorry storm water management so drainage calculations site plan showing the location of the storm water improvements and soil testing and all of that we would ask be made a condition if the board looks favorably on the application this this is so this is just a partial site plan and really because of the sketch that was originally submitted wasn't clear as to the parking we wanted to clarify it as was requested in Mr ca's report and I believe that Mr mlen has shown uh the dimensions of the parking spaces uh has has put in the U IND the cap parking um there's been a slight change with respect to the uh parking spaces that are being allocated for the proposed office use and it requires that a portion of the existing curb be removed in order to uh provide the proper size um parking spaces uh so there are a total of six bases one of which is handicapped accessible all right and and just as a reminder Mr britini Mr Carden and Mr kufel were all sworn at the last meeting so if you'd like to have them testify all right so yes perhaps we'll have U uh Mr Kul uh just go over those changes in the plans um just to just to quickly outline them to the board uh in case they W weren't able to see them on their plans themselves so I think I think someone has to unless there are questions on this on this plan and if necessary Mr mclan is not with us but I can reach him and have him join the meeting if uh if that's necessary Mr K could give an overview of the changes that'd be great on his plan okay y so then I think I think we have to remove the uh or stop sharing thec can talk about that too we uh uh first of all the uh plans were revised a couple of times one is uh we did uh decide to maintain the uh window well on the driveway side of the house um it's it scales out that a 3 by3 which is required by the code uh would still fit and we would be able to make that work um if for some reason that that the added uh concrete walkway uh is closer than the survey actually shows we will probably just eliminated um other than that is the is is the window well required as the additional means of egress no not at all okay not at all it's only a requirement if it becomes living space and we're not proposing living space in the basement the office is just an office okay okay uh it it window wells and egress windows and basements all came about because of the Southern building code in which people live in basements all the time um we uh we took out the uh circular staircase and provided a fold down uh stair for Access and it will only be used for storage and uh we revised one thing we did miss that we revised in cled was that the uh proposed uh kitchen on the second floor was not on the Riser diagram so that was added and also the fact that on the the window well was shown on the basement plan and we uh we uh petitioned off the uh office space that the uh client would like in size and we provided as as we have on all levels provided uh smoke detection and carbon monoxide detection uh kitchen access is still there there's an opening between the living room on the uh second floor and the first floor our entrance is uh in the back of the building and uh staircase that goes was up to the first floor and down to the basement um that is pretty much it it's uh didn't require any more than that we show The Landing and you can see the basement St labeled on the first floor uh plan which is on the first drawing that's about it I think there there had been a request also that on the uh first plan there was a square behind the spiral staircase and there was a question as to what that was um it's it's my understanding that that's the roof that's the I labed it as roof it is the roof area of the uh main entrance to the house so so so not accessible from the open storage area no not at all so it's only one story okay that's that's pretty much the changes or the additions of clarification uh that we did thank you and uh M uh Mr bertini there were a couple of open items that uh were on Mr Costa's uh report I'm not sure if we did or didn't answer this the first time are there any exterior improvements proposed where the metal can is located um no the metal canopy was was removed and the concrete patio below where the metal canopy was is just going to remain as it's shown on the the updated survey okay so there's no no change there no and um you've already describe the nature of your business and uh the use of the site you've already stated that there will be no uh construction equipment stored on site um the um although although uh Mr Kul stated that an egress window isn't necessary Mr Costa assumed that's what it was and U I believe that the uh the the recent survey uh by Mr lelm is indeed accurate so that um and and I believe you looked at this issue Mr batini there there's no conflict right between the that window well window and the no there's enough room to fit that window well okay inside the sidewalk inside problem and then you heard me state that you're more than willing uh if the board sees fit to Grant you an approval to engage either Mr Lal or Mr mlen to perform all of the work required for the storm water management and drainage plan yes and also there was a question as to whether uh any trees uh are going to be removed no here St just like it is okay uh and then uh no changes to the existing grade correct yes all right I have nothing further for Mr bertini okay thank you Mr Barrett um Mr Baron anything further from you before move on to all we have left is Mr C uh if the board has no questions read to Mr kufel or Mr bertini okay I Mr chairman Mr chairman yes Mr merman I have some questions yes we'll get to the board in a second I just want to go okay that's fine finish going through our professionals Mr Barons just want to make sure you add nothing further before I um I don't I I guess just that somebody at some point will address all the comments in you know the professional reports you know one example is just you know uh location of garbage and recycling you know simple uh site plan stuff so uh nothing major uh at this point I think the applicant testified last time that the plans include two one-bedroom apartments one on the first floor one on the second floor and then a uh a basement office space for his own use uh to the tune of 810 square feet so I have I have nothing nothing at this time Mr chairman okay thank you Mr baren Mr Costa anything for the architect from your perspective I don't know if you guys can hear me uh no I I have nothing for the architect okay at this point um I know Mr mer said he has questions obviously we got the sketch as far as the parking but in order to make that parking they're going to have to obviously do details they need to do uh the soil testing so on and so forth but again we'll wait for the the comments of the board and then certainly if you need me to chime in I certainly will okay thank you Mr Costa Mr de any anything from you uh nothing chairman okay thank you sir comments from the board questions um Miss Bolan if I can start with you not right now thank you okay Mr feffer uh no thank you okay Mr Craig um actually I have a question Mr Barons might be able to help out on um the criteria for uh providing a D1 variance what what is the criteria whether or not the use is permitted in the zone so in this case the site is in the C I let me verify I think it's in the C1 Zone which does not permit residential uses so correct by virtue of it being a non-permitted use triggers the need for a D1 use variance right but are there conditions or or um qualifications that need to be met in order to do that like there are for um you know variances where it's a hardship or there's you know a public good Etc is there any criteria like that for there is a a very specific statutory test established uh through case law and I believe the applicant has a planner who is likely going to address those okay because I would like to hear the applicants comments on that great thank you anything further Mr Craig uh no okay thanks sir Mr busted yeah just one quick question um how many parking spaces are required I think Mr Baron well I I mean based on our calculation and and again the uses the use distribution is two one-bedroom apartments and uh office an office space with 810 Square F feet so uh based on our calculation it's eight spaces required and six spaces provided okay great okay I just want to parfi because that's what I had in my notes from last time um so okay so is there a plan to put the additional two spaces in and I'm not sure who I'm addressing that question to Mr Barrett no that the the additional spaces are being added uh not not two more we're we're proposing six parking spaces that's six so we need a variance for two spaces that's part of the relief they're seeking the see okay understood and is it not possible to find two additional spaces in the in the proper at this time I would have to defer to uh Mr bertini on that to that question well so as I we we're not proposing um the entire area of the basement as as commercial space we we partitioned off an office space that's that's about 200 square feet which would require as I understand it one space plus the handicap space for a total of six spaces so we we've heard I mean I believe everyone thought that the um basement space was 800 square feet that's not the case no it's it's shown on the basement plans and it was it was discussed last meeting that we were on um that the basement is going to be partitioned most of the basement is going to be storage um and then if you on in the top right corner of the basement plant there is a proposed office that's partitioned off from the rest of the basement that's where the uh the window well um and so that's what we're proposing as the commercial space I guess the question is is what is the right number what is what is the required number is it eight based on that information or is it some other number hi pipin I have Mr coster's report in front of me right now and what he's stating is that there needs to be three spaces for the two family dwelling based on the RS s which for for one-bedroom unit requires 1.5 spaces per unit and according to the home occupation and professional occupation section of the design standards that requires two spaces for each 400 square feet of gross floor area devoted to use and one additional space for each employee the gross floor area that's being proposed as the new plans for the basement is30 sare ft which would require three spaces that's equal to six spaces the applicants Pro providing six spaces Mr C's report wrote that the six baces would require a variance because four residential spaces and two are commercial office spaces I believe that the applicant has modified the spaces so that three are for the residential parking and three there four the commercial office spaces so variants would be required for B variants for C variants if we can request it uh the site already is significantly constrained if we can ask for it to be subsumed into the D1 variants we would prefer to ask that but I guess that would be part of the testimony in terms of what we have but this is the information that I have okay so I was trying to follow along as you were rattling that off it sound like you were at six so I'm I'm just still unclear of what the required amount is is it eight or is it six and I apologize if I'm not following it clearly according to Mr C's report it appears that the requirement is six but for some reason he said that the total spaces that were proposed are six with a variance because we're there because we're proposing four spaces for residential two for commercial office spaces as was was spoken about before by um by um Mr Barrett uh they're modifying one of the spaces so that could be used as commercial space so that would be three spaces residential three Spaces commercial which complies with Mr coster's requirement for the off street parking interpretation and Mr Barons do you concur um there may be different ways to look at this I my understanding of the rsis requirement for um a one-bedroom unit it's actually 1.8 spaces I could be wrong it's more of an engineering determination so you know I I think it was offered that the requirement is 1.5 I guess it depends which category you put this in this is you know it's not a straight two family development it's a two family with a kicker you know this mixed use sort of situation so that may be open to interpretation and then we have the basement level and understanding that it's being partitioned I believe the ordinance May technically require consideration of the gross floor area so I think we can uh you know understand the applicant's testimony that in in practicality he's only using you know 100 or 200 square feet but technically the floor area encompasses you know more than that and therefore it may have a a a technical requirement whereas a you know the Practical requirement may be less that was a straight answer I know that didn't give a number but so I mean that would that that would get that would get you back to the eight so I guess we're between six [Music] eight let's do some clarity first all right so the make sure we got the right plants because I don't think you put them in the record yet Mr uh Mr Barrett so the latest plans revision number three I believe May of 2000 I'm sorry of 2024 correct correct they are up I guess we have to ask Mr ker what's the uh what's the date on the latest oh yeah 520 I believe yeah clarification 3 524 all right so and if you go to the basement and maybe maybe you can put that on the screen for the board edification not I I lack those skills okay um we had something up there earlier so I'm not sure who was in control of that I think Mr bertini may be working on it yes I'm working on it I just have to get to so let's let's there it is it we're gonna do this once and do it very very clearly so right now this is the proposal in front of the board tonight correct correct okay and you said it's 130 square feet proposed gross floor area right that's that's what you testified to and I believe that's what uh was given to our and that's also noted on the zoning chart on the cover sheet okay but let's here's the here's the actual floor plan so just with your with your cursor with your mouse what's the 130 square feet just follow theall line and then back that's it okay so just the that little proposed office but what about the other portion of the uh of the basement it says commercial use office so what is that storage that that label should should be over proposed office that that label should be taken off this storage I understand where it should be and could be but that's not where it is so and I think think that's what Mr Baron is saying do we take the entire portion because you don't say this is storage and then break it down and that and I think that's where it it lies originally the plan said it's a two family so under rsis you you apply the two family standard but in essence it's two separate dwelling units so I think you got to study it under D probably under Garden Apartments correct oh Jesus Christ [Music] Z it's stor for the tenants so in that case Tom might be correct I don't see so Mr Barrett are are you requesting the variance for the spaces if that's if that in fact is what's required yes we are okay let's just based upon the testimony that's been given um I'm sure that's more than adequate we can figure that out eight spaces and again if if you going into a garden apartment use one bedroom is 1.8 spaces per bedroom but Mr C why would why would it be a garden apartment versus a two family I'm not well that's that's the million dollar question and I think that's what Tom is saying it's technically it's not a two family you have a commercial space now I'm not sure if if the commercial space is for the occupant of the one unit yes that's what's being proposed okay yes sorry I didn't mean to open up a can of worms but I I think you know the applicants planner could probably is qualified to address that you know when we get to that point okay so should I wait for that part of the discussion to follow up with any questions um no I think you if you have additional questions I would no no that that that's essentially it is that I was trying to get to the point of my recollection and Tom Mr par you you confirmed it it was eight required there's six there and I I might have missed it but I didn't see a variance for the additional two spots and I guess now we're saying there's a request for the variance for the two additional spots and my response back is is there no space to put the two additional spots in given that there's really no excuse me alternate parking on the street for this location right so that's a question for the applicant can you provide additional parking yes Mr bar can someone from your team yeah maybe put that up and talk about go back to the site plan if you put the uh put put Sean's right back up so is is there any more room there for additional parking or that you can see not that I can see no well remember the grade of this property is pretty steep correct and uh once you once you get to the to the Woodshed on the left side the grade starts to rise correct greatly and uh we really don't have the room to place another one next on the uh impervious pavers so and you can see how spot number six is almost been located in a spot where it makes it really tough um I just don't see any other way of really doing this uhuh it just is almost impossible all right so so the answer is no there's there's simply not enough room no and because of the Great in the site right the grades so because of that we are in fact requesting a a variance VAR okay um I understood okay let me uh give that consideration okay thank you um Mr chairman no other questions for me okay thank you Mr ped uh Mr merman okay well you have um there seems to be a lot of confusion so what I want to do what I'm proposing is you you Gless over your drawing changes I want to look at each drawing together all right so let's keep no keep the one you had the site plan right there okay all right I think we just agreed that there was a window up correct do we not just look at and agree that there was a window well in that office yes there is correct architectural plans yes all right fine if you plot the window well on what we're looking at the supposed site plan um you will find that it it apparently Falls within the existing walkway correct the foundation wall of the W of the window well might be under the sidewalk to give it an additional support yes and to get the three-foot clearance is is that window well going to interfere with the current concrete walkway no I don't believe it I went me I went to the site and I measured it myself okay would you be willing to add a note there that says if window well interfer or something to affect a just walkway if necessary for window out would that clear out yes no question sure okay wonderful let's move on so let's start interior oh yeah go back yeah that's good that's good um what was my question there yeah we have uh we just had a discussion on the wording commercial use Office correct yes correct can you can you strike out the words commercial use office and if yes that that seemed to lead to the confusion for the parking calculation can you can you strike that out so there's no confusion and can I label it storage yes storage only okay great okay great we we'll makeing Headway here okay let's move um oh by the way um you show you show your stairwell going down right and we might we might get to this on on on a um another plan but that stairwell that you show going up actually comes into a rear entry all right correct I would like I would like at some point to review that rear entry but let's go on to the um first floor show me the first floor come back that that's an old set of plans is it yeah that's that's not updated you yeah you you you can hold that drawing for now no leave that drawing there that's fine I'll give you comments on that okay well that drawing is not the upto-date drawing that's an old give me the up to- dat drawing you got it because actually when you come in the back door it's uh three steps up and then you ah yes I I want to review that whole situation when you're ready so show me what you think is the latest I can uh I'll un share it so if you have something that's that's more up to date I'll share I'm I'm getting it next one yeah this is but this is the document yeah but you want the first right right this is the there it is right there um there show correct yeah yes yep that's it you're can I share my screen I have it up yes you should be able to share one no that's no it's that's the basement that's the second flooor actually this is the this is it y okay okay we go now that's the latest yes correct okay all right so I'll base my discussion on that um yeah that that that is correct right well not necessarily correct show me where the re I see the rear door the rear door you're showing two steps up which is incorrect there's a flat passageway there at grade that goes towards um what you're calling a landing for the first floor all right yeah so but that Landing that those two steps you show are incorrect it's actually flat there it's that gray you've got basically a whole um a slab on grade the steps aren't there and then um you go up your two steps or three steps to a landing that is now at your first floor level so that picture is incorrect totally incorrect I I was personally out there I walked it I walked up that land up that those couple of steps to a landing at the first floor so I personally know that's wrong okay what did I lose one step no whatever number of steps you need it's up to your architect I'm not I'm not designing stairs on this project I I know I'm not asking you to I'm just telling you that I went back out there after your last comments and I counted steps I will be glad to meet you there tomorrow if you want and show you where you're wrong what time [Music] um 10 uh 11 o'clock is is the issue simply that the steps are are farther to the north down on the drawing no this the issue is that whole entry is wrong Mr Barrett could could these PL or Mr merman could these plans be revised at a later date no there's too much confusion at a later date no I'm not I'm not I'm not going to approve something that's iffy at this point there's too much confusion on this project all right eliminate this confusion Mr M sorry to interrupt were these plans submitted to the board because I'm seeing notations on here that aren't consistent with what I'm what I was they were they were submitted the third set was not submitted until the end of last week uh Mr chairman okay um can I just say something the plans we have which are May 2024 do not have those steps are you sure you have the latest right is that the latest drawing latest I believe it's the latest but it may still have the same May 2024 date on it Tom you may just want to mark this as an exhibit and and proceed yeah because there are notations on here like the basement stair for example that's not on the set that's at least the review set I have and there's another the the basement window you could you scroll down to the to the date the revisions on this PDF three zoning comments yeah this is but this has different so the one that was mailed to from Mr Barrett also is labeled Rion revision 35 2024 but it does not have all of those notes so we're going to have to mark this as exhibit A2 and we'll mark it as today's date because we don't have these revisions okay so how are we going to resolve this issue are we going to go out in the field and look at it or are you just going to revise your draw and come back next next meeting hear the rest of your comments first okay you want to listen I'll be glad to give me the rest of my comments and then if you want we'll we'll decide a resolution does that sound fair yeah that's fair okay very good all right so now we are on first floor entry [Music] um the we don't need an alternate means of egress because you got a front door and a rear door so that's good great now let's move up to the second floor [Music] okay second floor so you removed the existing circulus there that's good however you do not show the storage Loft above with the closet and I know that that is there because we personally looked at it in the field you don't tell me crazy it's your drawing no I didn't call you crazy all right just said I wasn't there I didn't meet you that day sure you did no it wasn't me you called me in the car unless we were coming there you met me of course you met me that that was me that was Mr bertini all right all right so I can't tell one voice from the other but I was there um I will show that just for you well that let's let's let's yeah well thank you it makes the drawing correct it's not for me it's for the burrow all right um yes there is my original one of my early comish is there was a second entrance from the kitchen into the living room you showed that you did not show that's that's wonderful we're halfway home um you did not show the portion into the living room that takes up the open deck did you show the open deck space that's above that sometimes is refer to his attic that has to be corrected and let's re okay that's from the bedroom it's from the living rooming living room to the bedroom okay right now you showing an existing single partition that I I don't mean to interject but Mr just called me saying he lost power so he dropped off he should be back on momentarily so we wait for him is that it I think you have to okay no we'll [Music] wait well I'm gonna wait from Mr Barrett if I made through the chair if the board if if the board doesn't have the right plans I understand you want to mark it as an exhibit just oh yeah I think you you need to clean it up and say if there is another revision you need to revise the plan accordingly with a revision date and be specific we're talking about cross out a thing in the basement which could could mean something it's for storage only so on and so forth as far as whether or not you can get access to the back or move the sidewalk wouldn't it be better served if they clean up the plans put a new revision date on it and move on ah now you're talking Mr ca for here what happens down down the line again you have Steve that ultimately they pull a building permit and then there's always confusion as to what was what was ultimately approved and that they revise it accordingly so I think the Board needs to vote on something one way or another but vote on the correct plan and the correct revision that's that's again that's my opinion that that would be my recommendation to the board clean up the plans put in the right date and come back to the board Mr go ahead no Mr I was gonna say if you want to finish up your questioning um I tend to agree Mr Costa but why don't you finish up your questioning I offand I think that I think that were the main items um but let me um expand to what Mr Kasa said because the way we're going I fully agree with him I fully agree that the plan should be totally correct in this case so that we can um vote on them then and I and that includes the variance that includes because the motion will include the variance which I believe we now and correct me if I'm I'm misinterpreting I believe we've established that we need a variance for two parking spots is that correct Mr Barrett I'm sorry was that addressed to me yes so was we but I was asked if I had any additional comments so if I make a motion if I'm the the person that makes the motion we have establish that we need a parking variance for two places correct correct okay so that would go along with uh that would go along with cleaning up the drawings as Mr Barrett suggested and which would smooth your final Pro process of approval and before you even got there would smooth my process of voting on something that is um exactly correct as portrayed in the field so that's where I stand Mr chairman and I think that um I'm not voting on any any plans that that are not correct so let me just put it to you distinct substantially that way okay thank you Mr merman um Mr Barrett I'm going to suggest we you can move on if you want to get the rest of your testimony on the record this evening but I think the architect needs to go back and work on revisions on the here yeah I think if we could finish with Mr C because he was here last time and we we didn't have the opportunity to get to him then at least he can provide the basis for the use variants um and I know that uh one of the members had uh you know questioned Mr cray I believe it was um what the basis would be so if we could have uh I'm not sure if Mr Cardon was sworn the last time or not yes he was I think he was he was so whoever is sharing sharing their screen if it could uh stop sharing that there we go great thank you so Mr Cardon yes sir you've uh you've heard the board you heard uh Mr Craig's inquiry and of course that's exactly why you're here is to uh explain how this particular application um can be granted the necessary variance uh that is variances plural that are being sought that's is correct again uh just want to start by saying the this application we're at 831 Kinder kak road block 206 lot 9.02 River Edge the site's located in the C1 zoning District where the existing building was used as an awning manufacturer the site uh the TA according to tax assessor data the building was constructed In 1902 and currently exists as a two-story frame building the applicant is proposing to convert the existing commercial building into two one-bedroom apartments on the first second floor with an office within the basement the applicant as part of the application will not be expanding the building footprint and all modifications of the property will either be internal or to the existing building or to upgrade the existing parking area the two family use as discussed by the architect before the applicant is applying for D1 use variance as a remedy for the non-conforming use and is also requesting a c variance which I'm requesting that we subsume into the D1 use variant based on the poo versus uh North Bruner case um so again it's want to go into some of the surrounding uses uh again the property is in the se1 zone the subject property is bound by Kinder kamac road to the east which has commercial uses across the road including River Edge Pizza Kitchen Kitchen Fuki Sushi a nail salon and office uses there's commercial residential property to the South Bright Wier loans to the direct North and a single family residential dwellings to to the West further north is a multif family residential use called the terce which I'll get to later in my testimony the property okay we already went that the property is also located within a quarter mile of River Edge train station and is within in River Edge and is in the commercial Zone uh again the proposal requires variances pursuant to njsa 40 55d 701 for the conversion of an existing building from the parish uh awning and canopy Supply Company to a two family residential building with professional office on the basement floor the applicant request again I asked if he can subsume into into a c variance within the D testimony although my D testimony could also be utilized as a C2 argument if the board would prefer that so I I leave that up to the board but I'll give my testimony regarding the D as D1 use STS Municipal land use law sets forth the statutory pos positive and negative criteria for variance relief it permits a zoning Board of adjustments to Grant a Dev variance in particular cases and for special reasons the court have determined that special reasons include showing by the applicant that granting of the variant will effectuate the intents and purposes of the municipal land use law and Advance the goals and objectives of the Lo local master plan this is the positive criteria of the statute then to address the negative criteria the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed variants can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good nor will granting the variance substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and zoning ordinances of the municipality Additionally the applicant for a use variance is obligated to address the planning issues raised in the New Jersey Supreme Court case medich versus BPR Co in accordance with the guidelines set forth Michi an applicant for use variance must demonstrate that special reasons are satisfied by either showing that the proposed use is one which is inherently serves the public good or that the proposed use promotes the general welfare because the proposed site is particularly suited suitable for that use DC decision provides that in conjunction with the demonstrated station of a negative criteria an enhanced quality of proof must be demonstrated to indicate that the grant of the requested use variances is not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of master plan and zoning ordinances so the site meets the positive criteria for the following reasons so the first is criteria a which is to encourage Municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health safety morals and general welfare case law has determin that a site that is particularly suited to a specifically specific use meets the General Welfare purpose of zoning the evaluation of suitability revolves around two questions why the locations particularly suited to the use despite the zoning and what unique characteristics make the site of the site make it particularly appropriate the site is particularly suited to support this use for the following reasons the location of the site is is typical is a typ the location of the site is a typical site that meets the characteristics of a proper downtown residential use as envisioned by The Zone the site is located near res relatively busy intersections the curvature of Kinder KAC Road Li limits the site distances from the Northerly Direction and the site has a steep uphill slope on the Frontage which does not support ada8 compliant access from the RightWay front sidewalk as all access to the building will require either climbing stairs from the sidewalk spee sidewalk or access up the driveway which is steep grd most of the other properties in the commercial Zone have direct access to the sidewalk along the right of way Frontage of the properties specifically the properties that are across Kinder KAC Road and all these conditions will limit foot traffic to the site from the street and the ability of the site to function as a typical use as envisioned by The Zone there are also residential uses within the immediate vicinity of the parcel so there are prior approvals within the C1 zone of Residential Properties including the Terrace multif Family Residence which is two parcel to the north of the property along ker KAC road on the same side of the street as the property also in the C1 Zone and directly to the South the existing business located on the bottom of the hill along the RightWay Frontage with with a predominant proportion of lot used as the by part residence for 800 summon Avenue also a two family a two Family Residence is a low intensity use compared to the permitted use listed from the C1 Zone that this means that there's going to be limited traffic coming on and off site and in addition the benefit is that adds needed housing and activity within the downtown to support the businesses within the Zone this this property also meets a number of other criteria from the municipal Landing from the from the from the pl from the ACT which include criteria e to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations to contribute to the wellbeing of the community and preservation environment and criteria G which is to provide a sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of residential uses according to their environmental requirements the applicant is proposing additional two apartment units to add the housing stock barge development is also within the downtown and provides the type of units which are typical within the upstairs traditional mixed use downtown zones so this is going to provide more activity within the downtown and the walkability of the site from to the train station which is within a quarter of the mile which is also a benefit to the town by providing residences that can access the train station the pro the property also meet the project also meets criteria I which is to for a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangement the applicant's improvements to the site will provide a modern amenity rental space for apartment uses which will increase the available Transit accessible housing stock within the burrow the site will reuse much of the existing infrastructure and will not need to address the codes that a commercial building will need to address which will result in a greater disturbance to the layout and design of the site and the applicant will also be promoting more gardening uses on the back of the site providing a better buffer from the current storage that exists along the site and better views than neighbors along Summit Avenue this property this project also meets criteria M to encourage coordination of various procedures with a view of lessening the cost of such developments to more efficient use of land the site is reusing the existing building with only interior Renovations and internal modifications to the site along with some site cleanup and improvements to support the residential use most of the uses promoted from the ordinances for the C1 Zone will require significantly greater amount of parking on on and off site and will exacerbate issues at the intersection of Kinder KAC Lincoln Avenue and onto River Edge Road which is a low intensity use S which will make which means that there should be a low intensity site if developed for professional office which has the least intense parking requirements of the uses within the Zone which is one space for 250 square feet of gross floor area the property would require for the upster units at least another seven spaces for the residential area in addition to the four space that the five spaces that's required for the basement area as per the discussion to which we asking for the variance so so under the current configuration the site will require eight spaces which we asking for six spaces in terms of for the for the C variant for the Zone which still it's for this use as you can see even with the constraints of the site there still are issues here and going into the constraints of the site uh within the parking lot itself there are there the the way the lot is designed in term based on my visit the site uh there's a lot there are steep slopes and there's also constrained areas in terms of where the building footprint is from where the shed is there is a significant up slope that's going up to the uh the Garden area and requires steps that's going off the side to get to that Garden area so it really limits the availability of parking and the existing pavement really only provides what's there so but all in all that that's creating a lot of constraints that are available on the site so the site also meets a negative criteria for the following reasons the site will provide no substantial detriment to the public good as again the site is constrained by by its location along Kinder kamak Road as well as the slopes and elevations that are along the site the development is proposing a low intensity use which will not result in a significant traffic during rush hour as the vehicle used for residents into two one family two one-bedroom apartments and the business where the applicant proposes to use as his home office which is in the interest of minimizing the impact of vehicle traffic coming on and off site develop reutilize the existing building and improve the site with cleaning up the previous use and storage on the site as well as providing good buffering uses from the neighboring residential uses the site will also have no substantial impact on the Zone plan within the most recent amendments to the reexamination report of the master plan development regulations dated May 13 2022 the report provides following recommendations in the specific site specific changes recommended sections 2.3 on pages three and four with regards to amending policy statement for objective two of the for the 2020 reexamination report which states that multif family and mixed use developments should be considered within a quarter mile of River Edge train station for properties north of River Edge Road and prohibit such uses in single family neighborhoods this is a proposed this is a multif family use that's located within a quarter mile of the River Edge station that's north of River Edge Road which is not encroaching into a single family neighborhood by introducing a two family two family use in a commercial area is fulfilling this goal to introduce residential near residential uses in train station um this that that' be at least one start with that uh within 2020 reexamination report of the master plan development regulations while not an exact recommendation in section 2.2 which addresses the land use issues of the 2009 master plan Redevelopment report the following recommendation is addressed by the site and creation of mixxed use development where the the bur intends to review planning alternatives to address problems associated with parking Aesthetics vacant commercial spaces and undersized lot configurations that characterize the area of the Kinder KAC Corridor between River Edge Road and the burough of orale border to encourage investment lot and sems while the use is not permitted within the Zone it could be a planning alternative to address a vacant commercial space on a lot that while not under sized due to its topography have physical constraints that do not allow for the full utilization of much of the site as before the medich decision also requires enhanced quality of proof to be demonstrated to indicate the grant of a use requested use variance is not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the master plan zoning ordinances the applicant must also reconcile the use proposed within the ordinance's omission of the use from the from those permitted in the zone this means that while adding two family residents as permitted use within C1 Zone might not be the intent of the master or zoning plan it does work for the specific property for the reasons the slopes and figure and physical constraints of the site limit how to best utilize the site which is configured differently than most properties along ker comac Avenue Road within the commercial District which typically have access from the sidewalk directly to the front door of the commercial operations the existing building is set back from the RightWay and sidewalk Which is less accessible than typical commercial building the site is in an area where the driveway is both near a busy intersection has limited has a limited site triangle so the use for the site must minimize vehicular traffic on and off site for the betterment of traffic flow within the burrow the site is also located near a residential neighborhood to the west of the property and provides multif family residential uses within a quarter mile from the river Ed station which is a stated goal of the master plan revision also the property also conforms with the recommended use from the recently adopted re-examination report which we assume is to help strengthen the commercial zones that have been impacted by the challenges faced by Brick and Mortar commercial establishments particular the particular in response to the growth of e-commerce multif family mixed use development should be considered within a quarter mile of The Verge transition for the properties North verage Road prohibit such uses within the single family neighborhoods for these reasons the property is specifically suitable for the site of application in summary I believe the applicant has met the statutory burdens for the requested variances and the board's wealth and it rights to Grant the requested variances could you repeat that please I know I haveed but I want to make sure that we got everything on record did did you actually breathe during that that was pretty impressive couple okay Mr Barrett I'm sorry that's all right so Mr to sum up very briefly I think what you what you stated um excuse me just one second um Miss sty uh they they suffered the same problem I did they they lost their Wi-Fi they're coming back on okay I just noticed I want to let you know thank you I appreciate it um the the proposed use is less intense than what the ordinance permits correct therefore less traffic correct thank you and again that's important for the site because I've been through that intersection I live in Tac I'm right around the corner from River Edge and I know that to get to River Edge Road off of Kinder KAC is can be a little difficult and uh to have a high intensity use at that corner which would be prevalent it's very important to make sure that there's something that's low intensity and I think that having this near train station would provide for potential to minimi further minimize off-site offsite driving as much as possible provides some walkability though the site may not be accessible for ADA compliance certainly able able-bodied people could certainly walk to the site to the train station in a very convenient manner commute to the city uh utilizing existing accessible Transit I think that's sort of the intent of the the applicants in terms of how to make sure that the site is properly utilized thank you okay um gonna turn to our professionals Mr Barons I'll start with you sure uh I don't have any questions about the testimony but Mr Craig asked before you know what is what is the board charged with thinking about what is the test so I'll just reiterate that just for for clarity sake so again um we have a develop site right the building's there the you know the layout will mostly remain the same the site as it exists or as it had existed recently contained a commercial use on the first floor and a residential use on the second floor um and and so the statutory tests for the two variants is being requested again one the DU D1 use variants because there's a residential component where the C1 Zone doesn't allow any residential development and also the parking variant to the extent that that one is required so for the D1 use variants the specific test has both the positive criteria and the negative criteria so with respect to the positive criteria the board has to consider whether or not the use is particularly suited for the site with it and you know so what does that mean particularly suited you have to consider whether or not it's well suited within the context of the community whether or not the use is well suited for the site itself can can the site accommodate the use and again whe whether or not there are any unique aspects of the property that would that would you know render the use uh you know sensible to be located there and then moving to the negative criteria you'd have to address whether or not the granting of the variances would uh cause any substantial detriment to the public good and you would also have to address What's called the enhanced burden of proof and that's why the D1 use variance has this sort of heightened standard whether or not the granting of the relief would be inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the master plan and zoning ordinance so that's that's essentially the test before the board for the D1 use variants I'm reluctant to say the parking variance is subsumed under the use meaning that if the board were to approve the use that parking would sort of be lumped in I know some times that applies and just to give an example in the case of let's say a a gas station you know the typical ancillary component would be a a gas station canopy so you would sort of lump that in but I'm not sure that variances for signage or parking can necessarily be lumped into you know a use case I think the applicant you know uh gave proofs as to why they have sufficient parking but just from a super technical standpoint I just wanted to address that and so finally I know Mr um Cardin or Cardone I'm sorry if I butchered your last name you um uh policy recommendations that were in the master plan reexamination report so again there's a distinction between the master plan and the reexamination reports the master plan has the weight of policy the reexamination reports have the effect of uh an analysis or recommendation so um you know it's noted that there was recommendations I think going back as far as 2009 that the burrow should consider looking at mixed use Alternatives along this stretch of Kinder KAC it hasn't taken that affirmative step step but it's been reiterated twice now by the by the planning board so you know I think the board you know can consider that somewhat um but again just to to uh put that in the appropriate context so um uh I'll I'll end there but I think the applicant gave you know plenty of testimony for the board to consider but again that's the test by which the board should vote on thank you okay thank you Mr baren uh Mr dekin uh nothing chairman Mr Baron I think did very well in the comments okay thank you sir Mr Costa any questions for the planers Mr chairman I think maybe the best because Mr cardal good evening I guess in during your testimony that was fantastic with only three breaths of air during that whole that whole speech you said two family and then you said apartments and I think that's the million-dollar question that was asked before so when you apply the standard from rsis an apartment is 1.8 for one bedroom so in this case two units two one-bedroom units 1.8 * 2 3.6 round up four spaces are required for the apartments instead of three would you agree disagree or do you have another comment again at this point I could also make the argument for a for a C1 variant when it comes to the parking in general no no forget about we don't even want to get to the argument we just want to get to what is the right number in your opinion is it three for rsis is it four for rsis in this case um I'm I'm not sure I I can't tell one whether whether it would be 43 or for four for four uh again these are all use case scenarios but this is these are one-bedroom apartments these aren of a significant use and it's within a existing two-story house understood okay so let's do it this I'm gonna ER on the side of caution okay and I'm gonna say it's a based on what I've heard you require under rsis four parking spaces now when you get to the commercial and again if the plans get revised it's going to be storage and the and the board says yes to that it would be 130 square fet um which would require three parking spaces plus I believe if there is any employees now we haven't heard that and I'm not sure who would discuss would do testify on that Mr I believe that uh during the last meeting uh Mr C Mr boutini testified that he has no employees will not have any employees okay he's it's just him so if we go for there if we do four plus three we require seven and you proposing six then I'm not sure if it was Mr carton but he said that there's six parking spaces now with the sketch that was given today that now that'll be revised accordingly and give given to the board prior to the vote so you're going to remain with six and you're going to need a variance for one parking space if that's if that's how it's determined that's yes that's correct well we want to determine it we we we don't want to we don't want to talk about this again at the next I I have no problem if that's the case and the only thing I heard earlier from somebody you can't build additional parking spaces and I believe uh one of the board members Mr bu Ste asked that and the answer was danced around and my question becoming an engineer and building walls and parking lots and the above why can't you and I know the Wall Street excuse greed is good and it cost money to do these things but why can't you Mr Cardon and why shouldn't you and why do you think it works based on my site visit and I could if you need me submit some photos that that would help uh you have about right next to the shed the the elevation Rises about 10 feet um so it's you would have to dig out a significant portion of the landscape in order to do that now again I'm not an engineer I can't testify as an engineer to what that involv the cost would be and the and the and again when it comes to uh potential for what that's going to do to the land but it's going to have sign but in order to add more parking it would have a significant impact on the site as it exists now it would require it require more digging and more boring into the existing land okay I understand it so then you like I can this will be the last the last the last little thing um you're proposing on the sketch I believe a parallel parking space possibly you can do that and make another space if you can't Mr Barrett and I know you're familiar with the Dunkin Donuts case in Bergenfield you need a use variance so you're going to need some sort of a I would believe a traffic report in order to prove that but again I'll leave that to you because you counselor are much smarter than me I don't know about that um if if if in fact we're not going to conclude tonight then we can go back to Mr mcclelen to see about adding an additional space yes eliminating the need for a variance without having to dig up the whole hill that's which I don't think the people on Summit would be thrilled with you know we we're trying to minimize the impact uh rather than to uh extend the impact no understood and I think um I'm not sure which board member mentioned it but the problem is kindak Road there's no parking in that area so you got to make sure it works let's just say that that I that I lived in one of these apartments and they threw a party for me you now again that would be not a problem because I have no friends but someone else that's popular it it could possibly be a problem but anyway that would that's it Mr yeah but if you're gonna have a party one space isn't gon to make a difference let's be realistic I'll leave it at that and then all of the other comments from before obviously can be wait in Mr Caron thank you very much uh for your testimony all right let's uh let's let's conclude with questions and comments from the board uh Mr Cay I'll start with you uh I mean at this point I I think uh I've heard what I need to hear tonight and I think we going come back with uh the corrected plans I I would like to see uh possibly you know a solution to add that extra spot um but I'll leave that up to how they want to design that and we'll take a look when it comes back and I'm good okay thank you sir Miss Miss Bolan no no additional comments okay thank you Mr feffer no I think it's all been said okay Mr busty uh no additional comments thank you sir Mr merman well we succeeded in creating more confusion earlier I confirmed that we needed a variance two clocking spaces after listening to all the testimony everything seems to be up in the air all right so if I was the make a motion now I don't know the number so we've got to come up with a number before I can make a motion so I'm going to ask whoever on the design team you got to do what you got to do so we clear up this matter and come up with one two or three variant parking spots variance um that that that's you every time you turn around you make this uh application more difficult so okay Miss appli you've got to go resolve this before uh we we we take a final deter uh vote on this and yeah okay so that that that's that's my position total confusion okay thank you Mr merman um Mr Barrett I think you've heard the board's uh sentiment this evening you've heard from the professionals um I would strong L recommend at this time that uh we we carry this application to give you an opportunity to go back and have your architect revise the plans and uh make the necessary submissions to the board see my understanding Mr chairman that the uh board's next meeting of July 10th the agenda is already full and then you won't be and then you won't be meeting again till August 28th Mr Walter is our is our agenda full on on the 10th that's correct we are are bth on the 10th and then the next scheduled meeting is the 28th of August what do we have on the 10th 10th we have a proposed twostory Edition with a one story Edition also and then a above ground pool that exceeds maximum coverage two applications so there so okay two separate applications there those are two separate properties it's not all one correct okay um so that puts us into August Mr Baris yeah the other option is to resurrect one of the sum of meetings you know call it a special meeting that up to the war so what were what were the other two dates that we had tabled or for meetings after the there was obviously later one in in July and one in August the 24th and the uh 24th of July and the uh 14th 14th of August and I'm not here the 14th of August all right well I think that solves that problem so let me turn to the board uh would the board have strong objection to Revival of the 20 July 24 meeting date to continue this application can the applicant be ready for that oh that's a month away yeah it's a month I would hope so sure yeah I mean and the question becomes too are you know how many members are are able to attend that evening correct right so the first question is is any objection to re rescheduling secondly is anybody not available um and it's I mean tonight we have a couple of members missing for the mayor of course and the council member not eligible we do have a couple of members who were not in attendance this evening uh based on the schedules as you understand for the board members now is anybody not available on the 24th works for me okay all right I'm going to take silence as being gold and everybody is available on the 24th um that's it Miss steinley are you available on the 24th Mr barns Mr Costa yes I am yes okay so and and we'll get the plans in by the um 10 days before right at least more yeah yeah all right all right whatever that is 24 yeah okay the 10th before your next meeting okay we'll try and get them in by then or we have two days after that if need be all right so Mr Barrett since we we're Reviving this let's make sure we get our our ducks in a row please yes sir and and uh you know so that we can bring this to a conclusion thank you I appreciate it okay all right so we'll just need a motion to carry it to the July 24th meeting okay may I have a motion from the board to carry please move thank you Mr C there a second second I think I have Miss bowan by a hair can we do a Voice vote Miss NY you want to do yes that's fine okay all in favor I I any oppose any abstain okay motion passes this is the application for uh vertini 831 ker Kack road block 206 9.02 has been carried to July 24 Miss sty do we need to no further notice required no further notice will be required and Mr Barrett you agree to time for the make a decision absolutely so if anyone's here for public comment on this application it'll be carried to July 24th okay gentlemen good evening thank you Mr Barett I believe you're you're sticking around I am okay next item on our Mr Mar Mr chairman can we take a five minute uh break please uh we can or even three minutes uh why don't we okay let's uh let's reconvene at 9:5 or could go on introducing him and I'll slide out for two minutes well why don't we give uh we'll give everybody a a five minute break we'll come back at 9:15 great thank you okay motion to adjourn for uh five minutes so moved second favor I anyos we stay in adjourned until 9:15 call the meeting to order Miss steinley if you would call the will please yes Mr castlin here miss Boland here Mr merman here Mr faffer here Mr cray here Mr Mr bed here thank you all members are present thank you Miss NY we're going to move now on our agenda this evening under old business applicant is Martin Molen 800 Summit Avenue BL 206 lot 11 this is an application uh for approval a proposed pool house pergola outdoor kitchen with an existing garage and guest Studio seeking three D variances to C variances good evening once again Mr Barrett good evening Mr chairman um May I preface with I know the board established a curfew if we could have a little Indulgence we hope to be able to conclude tonight I don't think we would run much past that uh but if the board would consider that we would appreciate it uh any objection from the board to indulging Mr bar and the applicant past 945 this evening okay yeah we thank you Mr chairman we can do that um so we submitted revised plans on this project as well and uh we also submitted uh I believe it was yesterday perhaps it was this morning a summary of the changes on the drawings and if I could just very quickly go through those um and of course if there are any questions for the architect or for my client uh they'll be happy to answer them we do have with us uh Miss rer who's our planner and she was going to be our Final witness in terms of the drawings certain changes were requested uh there was a a dimension shown on the prior plan which actually measured the lot line uh as it stood from kinder Kack Road um so that's been removed because that caused some confusion there was a note added and there's a a gate that's been added to the south side of the property closest to Lincoln Avenue there's a 4 foot wide gate uh there's a comment in Mr uh ca's most recent report that it leaves you though above grade and that will be addressed uh because once again uh there are a number of engineering comments which my clients will comply with 110% uh but a lot of them are expensive to comply with and there's no problem uh if the board sees fit to Grant an approval uh to this application um there's a uh a note added about a new permeable paer walkway that's being added for that new gate access uh the calculations of the existing versus proposed have now been provided both for the building um and uh then there was a separation also that we provided uh the coverage on the C1 portion of the Zone versus uh the R1 portion of the Zone that's all been set forth on the revised plans also the uh exterior elevations have been updated to more accurately reflect the fact that the pergola is separate from the main pool house structure they're not connected um and with that being said U I know that Mr Costa's updated report um this just one inconsistency his item General comments item five on page three uh talks about confirming the proposed pool house or exist existing guest studio will not be used for living space the same comments in item number nine and on nine he says that's been addressed no further comment required and on five he says it remains open um so I think it was answered that it's you know the uh the studio above the garage is solely for personal use um you know visiting friends family whatever uh no one else is going to be staying there it's this is a as large as it is which most of us aren't used to it is a one- family dwelling and the entire property is going to be used by one family and that is the melan family and that you know parents and children and in-laws we heard about that that Mrs M's family will parents will be moving in as well and they're able to provide for them uh there um and as I said too there's a a number of uh questions uh of an engineering nature which really don't bear on the use of the property obviously only to the extent that it could affect the use or impact someone else that's what Mr Costa wants to us to address and we are more than willing to do so and make that significant investment uh if the board was to see fit to Grant an approval um so having said all all that I don't know if any of the board members or the professionals have any questions regarding the revised plans or if I should simply call upon his reader at this time to uh testify well let me just check with the professionals first uh Mr Barons sure good evening and um at the first hearing my colleague John Zabo was in attendance but I did get his notes so um I I think there were a few outstanding questions which may or may not have been resolved at this point point one was that the utility connections get sorted out again that may have been resolved um I I I think the one primary uh aspect at this point uh was the board had requested emergency access essentially where the the rear of the property meets Lincoln so there was a uh a new feature added to the plan which I think is a permeable paver walkway which leads to a gate but then there's a question of how do you get down the wall from the gate uh and so I I think that's one aspect that needs to be resolved I think there's a solution there as well um and so you know I would just ask the applicant uh or Mr Barrett you know how you guys intend to address that concern of the board with with uh all of the engineering work that's going to be done that'll be part of it to uh you know to devise something that's uh that's workable uh both from the emergency access standpoint as well as you know a practical use uh by family uh if needed so you know once the once the site engineer uh is retained then all of those items will be addressed to you know uh to Mr Costa's satisfaction since he is a very reasonable man I'll leave it at that I have nothing further Mr chairman okay thank you Mr bar Mr dekin uh nothing nothing again okay thank you sir Mr Costa Mr chairman when Mr Mr Barrett said 110% what more can we ask for what more can I say so I think it's fine um and I agree if the if the board grants the use variants obviously then they can then they can go forward get an engineer and then clean up all of the comments uh the retaining wall I would imagine you cut the retaining wall build a new one build a platform and stairs to get obviously up I don't think you're going to jump off the wall I don't think that was the intent um so I'm sure that'll be that'll be corrected in clean up also but with that I I mean Carolina's here it's it I love tonight you know why usually she's beating me up in the town that she represents but please go go forward thank you thank you Mr Costa uh questions from the board uh start with yes I have a question Mr chairman Mr merman actually it's a reminder Mr meeting I asked you to submit a structural engineering report on the existing correct that internal internal and along Lincoln right and and that would be part of the engineer task U much as the board has done in the past most recently at least to my knowledge on the um application on the building next to uh next to boggards uh we came in with the medical people and you wanted verification that's right yep and we we got you know we got it after the fact so that we will do all we will do all of that okay because I'm gonna look for that before any resolution is made well we see we'd like an approval so that we can then go and do it um so what guarantee do I have well okay would you agree to holding back a until we receive that absolutely okay that's good and we got a solution that's good see you're doing good tonight Mr Barrett all right we're getting okay good all right that's it Mr chairman my one my one reminder all right thank you Mr merman any other uh questions comments from the board on the revised plans okay silence being golden Mr Barrett I will turn it back over to you who right here thank you thank you Mr um you you weren't sworn were you last week previously she was previously sworn oh see I'm glad somebody has a memory there you go so thank you uh good evening Mr chairman members of the board Caroline Ryder from tnm Associates um we're here I'm here tonight to provide planning testimony and support of the application um that of course was continued from your last meeting and at that last meeting we did hear testimony from Mr mol um about the property and his way I believe he indicated his wife came home one day and said I found a beautiful place for us to live and raise our family or probably paraphrasing and then Mr molan indicated that he went to look at it and it was a carcass of a beautiful building the molan like so many of us are raising their family they are looking for a community to raise their family like Riveredge they also are part of the sandwich generation in that they have Mrs mullan's parents living with them or about to live with them so they're also living in the post-pandemic environment which require which we're seeing now um is resulting in additional space and needs in people's homes so Mr mol referred to the property um as a beautiful carcass of a of a building or something along those lines and uh everyone on the board I believe is familiar with the property many people refer to it as lovely and attractive Mr Barrett indicated in his opening remarks it is the applicant's intent to restore the site to its former grander this property has been used in a residential manner since the early 1900s I believe it is if not the largest residential lot in River Edge it certainly is one of the largest it is also a corner property with um Frontage on two streets property is a little bit over an acre with um approximately 24,000 square fet within the C1 commercial Zone and approximately 19590 square feet in the R1 residential zone so uh again always used as a residential use even though it is what's called split Zone and that the there are two zones on the property and the fact that there are two zones on the property are what's leading to some of the uh the variance requests that we're going to be discussing tonight the property the application requires both D variances a use variance for something that is not permitted as well as C or bulk variances the D variances the use variance has to do with that part of the property that's within the commercial Zone and the improvements that are in or proposed for that property are all related to the residential use but they're in a commercial Zone so things like the pool house the pergola jacuzzi out um the outdoor kitchen even the garage and the upstairs apartment although they exist they're associated with their residential use but located within the commercial area so therefore the use Varian is required there also are C or bulk variances associated with the application um as we go through our testimony I do believe that those C variances should be subsumed within the D variant however I will offer testimony for the C variances by themselves as well the C variances that I believe are applicable have to do with exceeding the maximum permitted lock coverage the setback of the accessory structures to the lot lines the pool house which is situated uh 2.58 ft from the rear lot line and also um 12.16 ft proposed to the northern to to the other to the side Lot line and an minimum the accessory structure setback of 4 feet exists today for the garage the pool house also because of the fact that it's a corner lot has as that secondary front yard so there is that setback requirement as well very briefly uh River Edge Of course has a master plan and has had subsequent reexamination reports the master plan from 1984 states that recognizes the importance of preventing the development of incompatible land uses in all residential neighborhoods through zoning and land use controls this is recognized throughout the reexamination reports most recently of 20120 and then in 2022 your reexamination report was um amended um and the policy statement from the 2022 reexamination report states that the Burrow's residential areas are well established the buau seeks to preserve and enhance its single family neighborhoods and prohibit encroachment of other land use development excuse me prohibit encroachment of other land uses into those areas of the buau it then does go on to discuss uh other opportunities for redevelopment and near the train station but it does specifically talk about no encroachment of other land uses within the residential uh neighborhoods and this is a res residential neighborhood it's a residential use its neighbors surrounding it except for one side are residential um and as I indicated the applicant seeks to return this property back to the residential Glory that it has seen previously um and I and that's why we're all here tonight let's get right into the variances as I indicated there's a d or use variance having to do with the fact that that the site a portion of the site is commercially zoned although improved and proposed to be improved with residential type improvements so we have to for the D1 use variants we have to show a couple of of proofs certain requirements having to do with the case some of some of which has to do with the case known as Michi we have to show and this is important that the site is particularly suited to the use that has to do with um a use that is not inherently Ben official such as a subject property such as a subject application excuse me then we have to show it's particularly suited suit it's suited to the use it's suited to the community the site is is unique I think we've all established this is a very unique site we've I've heard board members discuss it it's very large it has significant Frontage um it's on a corner and it's one of the old it's a very old residential uh use and it's if it's not the largest it's one of the largest residential lots with within the burrow we also have to show that there are special reasons to allow the granting of the use variants and the special reasons are a satisfaction or a showing that the application um brings forth or one some of the purposes of zoning and I believe that there are actually several purposes of zoning from the land use law that are Advanced by this application the first one is purpose a to encourage Municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health safety morals and general welfare next is purpose C to provide adequate light air and open space purpose e to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons neighborhoods communities regions and preservation of the environment G is to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural residential recreational commercial and Industrial uses and open space both public and private according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens and finally purpose ey is to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangement so those are the what we call the positive criteria for the use variants there's also the negative criteria that the application the variants can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good which is the surrounding area the neighborhood and without substantial impairment and intent to the excuse me without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and ordinance which is quite often the master point plan and because furthering with medich we have What's called the enhanced burden of proof showing that there's no impairment to the master plan um in light of the fact that there have been these periodic re-examination reports um and uh playing into the um the positive criteria also that we looked at was was the particular suitability I would say that this application not only does it have no impairment to the master plan it actually strengthens the goals that I discussed earlier of the importance of recognizing the residential neighborhoods no um no other types of uses infringing on those neighborhoods Etc as this is a residential use historically that wants to continue as a residential use again so that's the D variance quickly the C variant again I believe that they should be subsumed but I will run through the proofs although they're pretty similar um the C Varian is have been identified are exceeding the maximum permitted lock coverage the setback of the accessory structures and then the front yard setback of the pool house due to the fact that this is a corner lot I believe all of these C variances can be can be proven uh shown to meet What's called the C2 the flexible C2 criteria so with the C2 you have to show first of all that the purposes of the land use law are Advanced by the deviation by the variance requests so I just went through many um purposes of the land use law that I felt are Advanced um by the application and by the variance requests I will very quickly go through them letter a promotion of the general welfare C providing light air in open space e establishment of appropriate population densities excuse me G sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses and I promotion of a desirable visual impact you also have to show that the benefits of the deviation from the zoning ordinance requirements substantially outweigh any detriment I think that they absolutely do I think that this entire proposal is a just a I think that it's a positive planning example for this property and I think that it's an improvement to the property it's a property that's been run down that's been neglected um and it's being rebuilt to its former Grandeur as was indicated while maintaining the exterior of the building and all its attractiveness um it's being fixed up so that the applicant's family can live there and live there for quite some time I always like to say that with the boards that I represent which as Mr Costa did uh did make a reference to recently um that with the C2 variants this just shouldn't be an an application that that benefits the applicant this should be something that's better for the neighborhood and better for the community and I definitely think that this proposal is and what is being what what the applicant is is showing on the plans and has testified to will be an improvement to the neighborhood I also will note however that one of the variances at least I believe could meet the C1 criteria that has to do with the reard setback of the pool housee in light of the fact that there is an existing structure at that setback already the C1 criteria discusses reason of um a situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or the structure lawfully existing there on which is why I bring up C1 with respect to that one variance again I touched on the positive criteria for the C variances of course they also have to meet the negative criteria which is no substantial detriment to the public good which is the neighborhood and the surrounding areas I don't believe that there's a any detriment to the public good I think that this is an improvement to the neighborhood and to the community um and no de no substantial detriment of the Zone plan zoning ordinance and again I think that um this is furthering the master plan goals which I uh which I previously discussed about the residential zones and areas that's uh it for my my testimony I believe that um that there is sufficient evidence and sufficient testimony for for the granting of both the D and the C variances with respect to this application thank you thank you uh let me turn to our professionals I'll start with Mr Barn sure uh good evening uh thank you Mr ryer for your testimony U just one point of clarification you said there's a lot coverage variance um could you clarify exactly the numbers on that and I asked because the Lots split zone right so the front part is in the R1 which has a maximum coverage of 35% and the C1 Zone the rear part has a maximum coverage of 80% so it it may in fact be compliant if we're talking about the C1 portion of the property again that's why I I know that the total coverage is 35.5% I see that but again if you break it down again not trying to be overly technical but it may eliminate the variance if you look at it you know again broken down by Zone as as think is appropriate frankly thank you I I agree with that as well I my recollection is from discussions and from the past meeting that that was still something that might be required so in an effort to be overly conservative I did I did include it I will note that even if the property even if we took the most conservative approach with you know it's not that much over and as you indicated if we cons if we break up the residential and Commercial um coverages then actually a variance is is not needed but we took the more conservative approach and that is I believe indicated in one of the um in one of the uh plan revisions that was submitted and uh that Mr Barrett just reviewed got all right thanks so um not to belabor the point so obviously this is you know one of the most unique properties and most recognized B and River Edge um and that you know this rear part of the property has been associated with the house for at least 100 years I think that's pretty clear and because of the split Zone nature of the property that triggers the need for the use variants meaning that the pool and the pool house located technically located in the C1 Zone where no residential uses are permitted similar to the the last application we just reviewed that that technically technically requires a D1 use variance and then we have the dimensional variances due to the front side and rear yard setbacks which uh were addressed by the applicant's planner um and again just to reiterate test for the board it's uh for the D1 use variants whether or not the site is excuse me the use is particularly well suited with respect to the property and the context of the community whether or not it uh can be accommodated by the site you know does the site function well as a result of the improvements whether there are any uh unique aspects of the property to consider and again the negative criteria meaning uh will the granting of the relief uh cause any substantial detriments to the public good and whether the relief would be inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the master plan and Zoning WS so I have no further comments Mr chairman thank you Mr barns uh Mr dekin uh no my questions have been addressed thank you okay Mr Costa chairman no questions all right thank you sir I'll turn to the board at this time uh Miss bowan I'll start with you no comment thank you very much Mr the cray uh I it's just one comment um I know if we split the property commercial and residential neither side is uh exceeding a lot coverage but if if we're effectively looking at the area where the pool and the pool house are going it's a residential use and we should probably apply that standard so I don't you know would it make sense to just include a variance through that 05% overage just so that it doesn't create a problem time I think that was my point that's what we were discussing you're you're correct and we did provide testimony for it so that that would be the board decision question the the plan shows a covered the notes that it's a covered in ground pool I didn't think that was a covered pool is it maybe the applicant can answer that Mr hi everybody good afternoon did uh did you ask if it's a covered pool yeah because the uh the site plan not the one that the site plan that stated 66 a00 notes it as a covered INR pool and I didn't think that was a covered pool yeah yeah it's a it's an existing inground pool and it does if you say covered I guess there is some um what do they call vines vines there's a there's a there's a bridge with some Vines above it I don't know if that that that probably doesn't count as cover but yeah okay I mean I'm not sure it's critical because I think either way it would get treated the same way but just uh it's F I didn't remember that being covered but other than that I'm I'm good okay thank you sir uh Mr fever no questions thank you thank you sir Mr busty I no questions thank you thank you sir Mr merman my main concern is uh the uh access from grade to linoln street level and are you gonna entertain a motion tonight because before we do a motion I'd like to review the conditions I'll just tell you that ahead of time um anticipating that we are reaching the end of the testimony unless Mr bar I anticipate us okay Mr bar are you gonna put anybody else on no okay so then we might be ready for a motion tonight before before uh I get to a motion I want want to go over various aspects okay dly noted uh we'll come back to to that uh any further questions comments from the board or professionals okay um at this time I think we will move to open to the public for comment I think we had one attendee yep all right so at this time I'll look for a motion to open to the public please so moved thank you M bow is there a second thank you Mr Cay all in favor all any oppos any abstain all right at this time we are now open to the public for comment on the uh application you have one member of the public who's raised their hand so if you please state your name and your address for the record hi my name is Katherine Tolen I live at 782 Summit Avenue and uh first of all welcome to the neighborhood Molina am I saying it correct oh I um anyway I'm looking forward to meeting you and good luck with the project um I just have a question question for the board that I just I'm not sure about um this is a lot so I'm just trying to figure it out um I believe the molas everything they said they gave the board assurances that they would not be using the carriage house or the pool house as a permanent or temporary housing they wouldn't be doing any party rentals no airbnbs no income no changes to the pool totally believe that that's their intention um but what happens if someone buys their home is is that considered a condition that why they're giving the variances and that would there be a restriction on whoever may buy the property in the future um so um I guess I could answer that Mr Barrett are you proposing a deed restriction on on the property or just as a condition of the site plan approval well just as a condition of the site plan approval okay so in that case it would just be enforced by the buau and if the property were to change hands there would only be approval in the site plan for this residential use um and no airbnbs or outside rentals would be permitted unless they went through unless the new owner um were to get approval from the town that way okay and again the permanent or temporary residents all of that okay so then I just have one other question thank you for answering that because I just wasn't sure I I appreciate that um the side entrance on Lincoln I'm not quite understanding like how that's not like a major structural change because like the existing wall is very close to the sidewalk so I'm just like it doesn't sound like there's a plan in action for that so I I don't understand how it's like you're just saying it's okay well if the application were to be favorably uh approved this evening that would be addressed as part of the engineering conditions that the applicant is agreeing to abide by and that would be subject to the review and approval of our bur engineer who is um in attendance this evening okay um I guess that's it good luck welcome to the neighborhood okay thank you very much if there's no one else in the audience I don't believe there is I'll look for a motion to close to the public for comment so moved thank you M bow is there a second second thank you Mr bu all in favor I I any oppos and abstain we're now closed for public comment on this application um at this time I will uh ask for any further comments questions on the application from the board Andor our professionals and if there are none I will uh ask for a motion on the application please Mr chairman permit me Mr Mur um I got a list that I want to verify is the applicant I believe agreed at the guest house uh um likewise would be Mr Mur you're fading in and out so I don't know if you're if you could okay am my better yes okay I I I'll snuggle up to the computer likewise the pool the pool or pool house um there would be no party rles um I believe that was testimony um no bedrooms would be constructed in the pool house structured that um P engineering comments regarding greeting plans Water Management would be adhered to I believe Mr Barett agreed to that earlier um Mr CER also had comments regarding sanitary the sewer routing um that had to be worked out that I believe there was testimony regarding no lighting would spill over on the property lines um I'm suggesting that drawing notes would include a Lincoln Avenue uh pavement uh uh existing conditions condition observations and a report and repairs specification being generated for materials and installation uh that was no testimony on that but I'm introducing that to make sure that the Aesthetics of Lincoln Avenue and the existing payment uh and so forth amenities uh remain and that they if they're damaged they're repaired uh properly and that um interior and exterior walls U be conditioned inspected and certified by a structural engineer to Mr C's uh caser engineering's satisfaction and that the um LOL Avenue um item that I mentioned for specs and repair likewise um the engineers report a CO is agreed to by Mr bar be held for uh be held to Mr caser totally satisfied those are the major items I have um and what I would start out with is our design professional and or deter a list of the various uh various variances required um the land use variances um too many to try to sort out so I think I would handle that way so what I'm saying at this point um if the applicant agrees to all that I'll wind up putting that into a motion no problem wonderful all right so Mr chairman um if it's okay I'll make that a formal motion the land use Bo of the burrow River on for 800 Summit Avenue block 206 l n um perit the um variances and conditions required just listed for the proposed pool house outdoor kitchen perlar and other site amenities that's that's what I have okay there a second second think Mr pray on a second all right M steinley all right and just a reminder this requires five affirmative votes um to pass so Mr caslin yes Miss band Yes miss Mr merman yes Mr Feer yes Mr Cay yes and Mr besed yeah all right the motion passes all right congratulations welcome to town welcome thank you very much best of luck thank you this was great I appreciate everyone's time I know I can tell just from two meetings you guys do some significant work and impactful and you take your time with it so I really do appreciate you having us back for a second time and we'll stick to the rules um because that's our style so thank you again supposed to us up first we appreciate that good luck with your project thank all right there that being the end of our agenda for the evening unless uh anyone from the board has anything further there there was one other matter that Mr Barrett had raised earlier today that I just wanted to discuss and he can elaborate but if you'll remember the um 606 Kinder KAC Road um I'm gonna mess up the applicant's name uman Kor roev I'm not sure they were approved last month or the month before and there was a discussion about the signage on the property um Mr Barrett had agreed to look at the prior approvals those were not able to be found in the resolution it stated that the applicant um would comply with prior approvals regarding signage um or comply with the burrow Co code regarding signage or alternatively return to the board for additional relief since they couldn't find the prior approvals they want to use the existing brackets that are on the building and just update the sign it would correct it would be uh letters uh single letters that and then the ordinance says that you have to measure a rectangle around those those letters and it would be uh 20 square feet which is what the ordinance provides um I I mean from personal knowledge those brackets have been there forever um I was trying to think back and and I don't know if anybody else even remembers when that establishment was the Madison yes oh you do okay good yeah um but I think even the Madison sign was there and that goes back to the early 2000s and and then there were there were other restaurants there there was a was it China Evergreen was there um and and so on and so on in any event the the the ordinance though um says that if you're going to have the sign of of individual letters has to be attached to the building there's no place to attach it because the roof comes down and then the uh there's just a little bit of stucko above the door and there's not enough room to put a sign so all he wants to do is use the bracket because I I know there was a discussion at the last meeting um I think I think he was proposing a 40 square foot sign my recollection and the board said no that's you know that's too much so this this conforms size-wise with the ordinance and he' just like to as I say put up the uh the lettering uh and you know put it put it on the existing brackets so in other instances I guess this question would be to Mr dkin and Mr Baron's we've allowed um applicants and Property Owners to just replace reface a sign as in the same location my question is would this require coming back to the board for Relief because it's in a non-compliant location or could we or would this be fine to proceed as proposed I I would comment and say that if complies with the or with the ordinances um and the board's agreeable to being it placed uh where all the other signs have been uh then I wouldn't have an issue with it um I think one of the uh one of the issues when they came into the office was uh it was a larger sign uh it was different type of lettering um but if it if it complies with the ordinance then uh as I said if the board's uh agreeable to the keeping it in that in that position location then I don't have an issue you know they'll get the permit uh they'll do we'll do the review and if it uh uh if everything's uh you know compliant then they should be able to do it Mr Barett question could that sign be Mount there three brackets there now could that sign be mounted on two brackets I'd have to ask the sign man I honestly don't know I could I could certainly find out and if if so then yes that's what would be done but I don't know the answer okay but if that's if that's what the board would like if it can be uh eliminate one of the brackets certainly there's no reason to keep it there at least that's my desire I don't know about the rest of the [Music] board any other comments on the board I mean my I would be inclined not to have to have them come back um you know I I if Mr merman feels that you know to we remove that bracket you know I would be in support of that as well I'm looking to try to find the most expedient manner here certainly Mr dekin suggestion makes reasonable sense as well um maybe the thing to do is is to address Mr merman's concern Mr Barrett if you could get an answer to that question we can take it up at um we can handle this administratively if if that's something that uh is possible Mr chairman well that would that I'm sorry that would be a construction and uh uh to the to the sign so if it's needed it's needed if not then then it can be removed Mr chairman Mr pepper yeah I I would suggest unless anyone has a strong objection that we not we not put this on the agenda just over the issue of a bracket the I I think what I'm hearing if I'm understanding correctly is that the applicant just really wants to put up a sign that conforms to all the regulations already and so there's really nothing for us to decide they're going to have to go through the process and if if they're com already in compliance there's nothing for us to really discuss or decide and so if as Mr Murman raised his concern that they use two brackets instead of three brackets and Mr Barrett has already said that they will do that if they can I you know I I think that um if we have to make a formal motion then I I would move that we just allow them to to proceed on that basis yeah as I I'm sorry go ahead I'm sorry you can go ahead no as I said before I'm not looking to have them come back I think if there's a way we can do this administratively without coming back to the board I think that's the best best result um Miss steinley yeah I I think I would agree that this could just be handled with a regular sign application um and I don't think that the Board needs to um take a vote on that because we've discussed it tonight um and if any other addition issues arise that Mr dekin finds then then it would need to come to the board but otherwise it would be fine so and I think as as Mr dekin stated if it's if it's required structurally then it's required if it's not then it's not and that something that he would determine as as the construction official yeah we'll leave that in his perview great okay terrific all right thank you so much sorry to keep you late that's all right that's what we're here for and I appreciate the board's Indulgence uh staying on a little extra late tonight um and certainly coming back on the on the 24th so unless there's nothing uh I have nothing left on the agenda unless the board has anything further I will look for a motion to adjourn so I'll move thank you Mr fa there a second second thank you sping all in favor hi oppose name stay We Stand adjourned at 10:03 p.m thanks everyone good night good night happy fourth everybody