##VIDEO ID:n9ThKATUg6w## well let's get going we'll call the meeting to order good evening everyone today is Wednesday October 23rd 2024 time now is 7:30 pm. this is the regularly scheduled meeting of the municipal Landes Board of the burough River Edge this meeting of the bur excuse me this meeting of the municipal Lanes Board of the bur River Ed is being held remotely and recorded via Zoom due to burough council chambers unavailability and is in compliance with the provisions of the open public meetings act and Associated regulations notice of this remote meeting was published in the Beren record posted on the front doors of burrow Hall and posted on the Burrow's website the notice included the dial in and login information necessary for public participation and access to this meeting remotely copy of the agenda for this meeting was made available on the Burrow's website near the posting of the meeting notice and included the dial in and login information during the public comment period of this meeting if you would like to make a public comment please press the raise hand button on Zoom or dial star9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand the board will address you by name or by the last four digits of your telephone number you may mute and unmute Yourself by pressing the microphone icon on Zoom or dialing star 6 on your telephone keypad you must state your name and address clearly prior to making a public comment uh with that I'll turn it over to uh Miss styley to call a rooll please thank you Mr Mayor here Mr caslin here miss Boland here Mr merman here Mr feffer here Mr Craig here Mr K here councilman glass here Mr Gibbons here and Mr B bed is absent at the moment also present Mr Barons our board planner Mr Costa our board engineer and Mr dekin our zoning officer okay thank you one housekeeping item we're going to set a curfew tonight for 10:15 hopefully we'll won't need that much time but um that will be uh tonight's curfew our first agenda item this evening is under approval of minutes uh we have a draft set of minutes for our meeting of SE September 25 2024 draft set was circulated to the board for review prior to this evening's meeting open it to the board for comment or questions on minutes of September 25th um Mr chairman Mr on September 25 minutes so I did not get to review them okay so I have no comments one way or the other any other members of the board comments on the minutes for the first September 25 okay there being none I'll look for motion to approve show me thank you Mr Mur is there a second second thank you Miss Bolan oh miss Boland I believe was absent that meeting on the 25th I don't think so I'll second yeah they have the minutes show uh Miss bowan is absent okay a second from Mr Gibbons Mr Gibbons okay we can do a voice vote but the mayor Mr castlin Miss Boland and Mr besed RS okay so all those eligible to vote all in favor I I any oppos any obain okay thank you our next item under approval of minutes is uh minutes for our meeting of October 9th 2024 draft said the res of the minutes were circulated for review by the board prior to this evening's meeting open to the board for comment or questions on the draft yes Mr chairman I did review that sentim minutes and there is one correction needed I believe um that's on the Happy Dog um on page two of the minutes um you you have the Happy Dog lot and block I believe has to be corrected I believe the proper um uh designation is block 409 lot 3 and I even went back and checked the survey and and the 409 lot three is correct so that that's my comment okay thank you any other comments questions on the draft for October 9th okay with uh Mr merman's uh one modification I'll look for a motion on the minutes please I think I have a first Mr cray and a second Mr Gibbons all right um we can do a voice vote the mayor Mr caslin and the councilman were excused for that meeting okay so those eligible to vote uh all in favor any opposed Iain one exstension for Mr kigo thank you okay moving along our next agenda item this evening is under memorializations applicant is Happy doggy LLC property is 47 River Edge Road Block 409 uh draft of the resolution was circulated uh prior to this evening's meeting for the board's review open it to the board for comments or questions on the resolution Mr chairman I look at that and I think Marina will um uh discuss that yes there was one edit on the first page in the second whereas Clause I had the incorrect address it should be 47 River Edge Road so change that okay other comments questions on the draft resolution okay there being none I'll look for a motion to approve with that one modification moved thank you Mr CRA is there a second second thank you Mr Gibbons all right I'll only call those eligible to vote uh Miss Boland yes Miss Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes Mr cig yes Mr Keno yes uh Mr gibons yes all right the motion passes [Music] okay thank you our next agenda item excuse me this evening is under completeness review our first application the applicant is is Evergreen Medical Group PC property address is 887 Kinder KAC Road this is block 206 lot 5.03 in a 2023 resolution the applicant agreed to comply with burrow codes requirements for signage or seek additional approvals from this board uh the applicant has submitted an application for approval of a proposed Monument sign at the front of its building uh Mr bars actually sorry steinley start with you all right yes although this is not um does not impact the completeness the applicants attorney did provide the proofs um and I reviewed them and they were sufficient for the board to have jurisdiction over the application tonight okay thank you uh Mr Barons sure good evening and so the application is solely for the installation of a a freestanding Monument sign the applicant submitted a plan which indicates the proposed location and setbacks of the sign they've also submitted details for the sign so I believe the board has information sufficient to proceed with the application okay thank you sir uh Mr dekin um hello everyone um I'm okay with this uh application okay thanks sir questions from the board as to complete this there being done I'll look for a motion to deem the application complete so moved first Mr K may have a second second thank you Mr C all right I'll do the roll call Mr Mayor yes Mr klin yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes Mr cray yes Mr Keno yes councilman glass yes Mr gibons yes okay the motion passes okay thank you our next excuse me I applicant under for complet this review the applicant is quality home developers LLC property is 312 web Avenue block 302 Lot 12 applications seeking approval of proposed subdivision of a one lot into two lots um Miss styling yes so this one is the application that's coming back for reconsideration and the applicant Ren noticed for this hearing um and I reviewed the proof submitted by the applicant's attorney and found them to be sufficient for the board to hear the application tonight okay thank you uh Mr bars sure so um where we left off with this um applicant was that the board um needed additional information from from a completeness perspective in order to uh vote favor favorably on the conforming subdivision the applicant has provided a plan which indicates I I believe they're conceptual but they can clarify uh building Footprints um basically they show how the properties will be developed including storm water management uh retaining wall Etc so I believe they've they've spelled out um the information that had been missing so I I I think we could deem the application complete at this point okay thank you sir Mr uh yes I agree with Mr baren okay thank you sir Mr Costa they can certainly go forward definitely okay any other questions as to completeness okay there being none I'll look for a motion to deem the application complete so moved thank you Mr given there a second second thank you m bowan all right Mr Mayor yes Mr klin yes Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes Mr Craig yes Mr Keno yes councilman glass yeah Mr gibons yes okay the motion passed okay thank you our third item under completeness review this evening the applicant is bedos and Lisa yayan I apologize if I'm mispronouncing that property is a23 bogert Road this is block 118 Lot 10 application seeking approval for the installation of a outdoor deck uh seeking coverage of relief Miss styley yes thank you uh prior to the meeting I reviewed the proofs submitted by the applicant and found them to be sufficient for the board to have jurisdiction over the application tonight okay thank you Mr Baron um as you stated Mr chairman the application is solely for the addition of a rear uh unenclosed deck U the applicant submitted a property survey a plan um as well as elevations of the deck and photos I believe the board has enough to proceed this evening thank you sir Mr dkin uh yes this one's a little bit unusual this was a transition period for the U ordinance amendments uh which I didn't have I guess at the time that did the review uh we had some um email conversations in regards to uh what was required and what they thought would be um uh compliant so I redid the uh zoning review I revised it uh yesterday um didn't have time to get it out but we can discuss that uh during the uh during the application so I feel it's deemed ready to go okay thanks sir uh Mr Costa uh uh again I concur basically it's it goes back to coverage on this one chairman okay thank you sir questions questions from the board as to completeness okay they're being none I'll look for a motion to deem the application complete mov thank you Mr Cay there second Mr Keno thank you all right Mr Mayor yes Mr Castle yes Miss band I I need to abstain I'm within 200 feet of the property okay hello neighbors Mr Herman yes Mr feffer yes Mr cray yes Mr Kena yes councilman glass yeah Mr gibons yes okay the motion passes okay thank you everyone we're going to move now into our new business section of the agenda this evening our first application is Ever Green Medical Group PC property is 887 Kinder Kack Road this is block 206 lot 5.03 uh application seeking approval for the installation of a monument sign I do believe we have uh the applicants council with us this evening good evening Mr bar good evening Mr chairman members of the board Thomas J Barrett for the applicant um I may regret this later on but we actually are also seeking approval for two existing signs one is on the door the entrance door and one is on the window that's faces Kinder Kack Road uh but I I don't want a question to come up later on uh but that was included in my letter they are very small in size we can you know is is Mr Ley with us I can't see down my screen that far is Miss stle is there s Levy with us I do not see that name no all right well we submitted the sketches I do have uh M Osorio who is the uh manager for Evergreen um and this is the property uh just well it's between the uh the dun donuts and the funeral home uh and as was recited approval was given back in 2023 for this Medical Practice to open in this location and they will be opening on Monday obviously it takes a while to you know outfit the premises um and the um so if if I may uh as I said we submitted uh the monument sign which is located 18 Feet 3 Ines from the curb the reason it's so far back is that back in 1989 when the property was developed the county re required uh the then applicant Mr Bedrosian to uh grant them a right of way um so their their property line ends sooner than those to the north at least to the South uh uh but any event so we placed it beyond the property line obviously not in the County's right of way um and this as the sketch shows it's it's one-sided it's 5 by4 it's 20 square feet and um perhaps uh if we could have uh Mr sorio sworn in just to uh provide a little testimony regarding the uh the monument sign all right she'll just have to turn on your camera and unmute hello there we go all right if you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes please state your name spell your last name and provide your address for the rec Gina Osorio o s is and Sam o r i o and you want my home address home or business address is fine okay 44 Lockwood Place in Clifton thank you so missio um if you could just uh tell the board why in your opinion the practice needs the monument sign that we're proposing um so for the past year while we've been doing construction we've experienced people having difficulty finding our location because there's no indication as to Evergreen Medical anywhere on you know other than now that we have the decals up but there's no no sign uh where they can find us um so I'm afraid that we're going to have the same problem with patients come Monday um and you know we're afraid that they might possibly stop short and cause an accident Kinder kak is a very busy street um so we just want something that is going to identify where we are to make it easier to get into the building thank you and and based on your own observations um there's a monument sign just to the south at the funeral home yes and there are multiple others along Kinder KAC Road yes there are okay and then the the decals that you spoke about one of them is is um 3T 2 in High by 2T 4 in um so approximately seven 7.4 square feet correct and that's on the window and then the yes the decal on the door is one foot three in wide by one foot 6 inch high yes and it's just a white vinyl decal just with the name of the practice is that correct the name of the practice and the logo correct okay yes so uh members of the board so we need also a variance from the uh requirement of the ordinance which limits signage to 20 square feet so we're looking at approximately a total of 29 square feet dispersed amongst the three signs um and uh in addition uh the one that's on the window that also requires a variance the ordinance doesn't permit that uh but I think again um anybody who's driven by I didn't even know those decals were there it's right down the street from my office uh and so the monument sign is really quite important for the safety reasons that uh that have been pointed out and I I think we can all recognize that over the years um there have been multiple Monument signs approved because of the the nature of K kak Road and we would ask for your kind consideration of this application okay thank you Mr Baron let me go to our professionals at this point um Mr Baron I'll start with you sure um good evening um just to start off regarding the the window decals I I'll defer to Mr dekin but I know there's a provision in the ordinance that talks about allowing window decals in certain situations so whether or not these can form I guess remain a question I know you're requesting the variance relief but again I'll I'll defer to Mr dekin or I I could review you know what it says if if that becomes a question I think just to expedite the conversation um I'll share the screen of first the plan um where the sign is going bear with me um so board members public can see you have the property the buildings here Kinder commac the bottom of the page and the sign is orientated uh oriented excuse me parallel to kinder kak road with as as the exhibit indicates 18 feet 3 in from the curve but about one foot from the property line going to stop sharing and then show the sign details bear with me uh tab almost there and then we have the details of the sign sorry I'm trying to enlarge it so you can see see it as Mr Barrett stated the sign is 5T High by 4 feet wide 20 square feet it is of the illuminated uh cabinet variety and U that that's about it so my observations are this with respect to the sign um you know obviously the burrow does not permit freestanding signs hence they are here requesting variance relief I would offer that there are a if if the board were so inclined to allow a freestanding sign there are a variety of styles in that vicinity and um the applicant provides a depiction of one in the vicinity of the site for BCB Bank um there are others uh and I'll point to the funeral home and and a few others across the street so it's a you know question of style we don't permit them at all there's a variety of styles I would say dimensionally this one seems to be on par with the other ones are there and again it's an illuminated cabinet um illuminated cabinet I'm talking T tonight um the one other observation is that the sign is uh oriented parallel to kinder KAC where all those other signs are perpendicular so if if the issue is visibility and to alert passers by you know where where the facility is I I offer I question if that's a better alternative I'll defer to the applicant and then and then finally in providing a justification for this the freestanding sign um maybe to hear from the applicant why a wall sign wouldn't suffice I think would help the board understand so those are those two questions um one being whether or not the orientation the reorientation makes sense and and to give us an understanding just help us understand why this is better than a wall sign it's not not a gotcha but maybe consider how far back the building is set back if there are uh I mean that's that's one of the reasons why it's it's parallel rather than perpendicular is because if you look at the uh building uh to the uh south of the walkway it extends further towards KAC um and it would block if the sun were perpendicular it would block it from uh those traveling north uh whereas we thought that the the parallel sign would be visible to both uh you know Travelers heading North and South so that's the preferred orientation and you've thought about it because yes because of that reason because of the location of the south side of the building I I have no further questions thank you okay thank you Mr baren Mr dekin you're on mute sorry keep on doing that uh I tend to agree with Mr Barons in regards to the perpendicular location um it would be something that you would be seeing uh as you drive uh South um more than uh than going going north um but that's certainly the applicant's uh decision uh in regards to uh the the only concern I have is the um the the Looms or the wattage or you know what type of uh interior lighting is it LED lights they tend to be a lot uh uh brighter um just wondering whether there's a diability uh to the to the lighting of the sign if if necessary M Soro do you know I'm not sure if he indicated what kind of bulbs he would be using but we can certainly if the board sees fit to approve um whatever the board Desires in terms of Tim ability or what have you we'll provide for that exactly uh what I've what I've seen in the past is uh with these LED lights uh you know that the uh if the board does approve it uh that there's a review uh within uh six months or a year time uh to the uh to the extent of the of the of the brightness I'll say the Looms or whatever whatever you can call them U that's certainly accept sure we would have no problem with that that's no problem and as far as the uh the window signs uh that is something in the code that's prohibited uh but it's uh approval uh by the zoning officer and I really have no no concerns with that that signage okay thank you Mr step let me turn to excuse me we turn to the board now for questions uh Mr Craig I start with you yeah um I'm not sure I heard the complete answer about why a building mounted sign couldn't achieve the same purpose missio did you study that with the Mr leevy the sign man as to locating a sign on the building itself we did not consider that no is it something that you might consider I mean the building mounted sign is not prohibited and if it can achieve achieve the same purpose yeah we'd be in in compliance with the code uh I would have to speak to the owners to see if that's something they would want um I know that at one point they did discuss it but I think that where they wanted to place it it would be covered by a tree that's there and they thought it wouldn't just it wouldn't be visible enough yeah I mean trees can be trimmed right um I guess the other question I have the door and the window mounted sign which I don't have any real heartache about but obviously that's not for traffic recognition right the purpose there is branding I guess uh yeah pretty much okay okay that's all I have thank you thanks great uh Miss Bolen um I also would have the same question as far as uh being on the building I know there are other Monument signs um I typically am against them if we can reduce any and not add to them um but if there is a reason not on that it cannot be on the building or it cannot be is not visible on the building this makes this uh makes sense that you do need some sort of recognition Okay thank you uh Mr Gibbons uh no I I don't you know I'm looking at the the Google Maps here and it and it does look like a challenging building for this um there's a large tree in front and when it has leaves it looks like it could be difficult to see if it was on the top of the building um so definitely a challenging spot I guess with the uh you know with the with the greenery that's on the property so no other question it's just an observation I would just just offer to that point Mr chairman that if it were to be placed on a certain portion of the building it might actually trigger another variance because we only allow it up to a certain point of the building so the ordinance prescribes how high it can be but if it were to be placed at the top of the building for instance above trees or whatever that would that may trigger another variant just for the board's information okay uh Mr Mayor no I have no questions at this time thank you okay thank you Mr councilman no questions thanks thank you Mr feffer uh thank you I just have a question about the illumination of the sign um how late do you uh expect the uh your business to be open uh each day and is it possible that the illumination of the sign can be turned off uh after business hours yes so uh the latest we would be open to what we've discussed hour- wise is probably 7:00 7:30 um and we did plan on turning it off once the last person is out the building okay thank you that's all I have okay thank you sir uh Mr kigo uh thank you Mr pepper just asked one of my questions so thank you Mr pepper uh I to me it looks like the orientation is wrong to effectuate the people seeing your sign I think you got to turn it the other way but that's up to you uh I have a question for our professionals why are mon Monument signs not allowed what's the purpose uh behind the the ordinance and and shouldn't we be considering that purpose well I'm going to attempt to answer that on the fly so as far as I understand it's been a provision at least as long as I've been aware uh so I I don't know when the prohibition exactly came into place as far as as why um i' I've heard explanation you know it all depends on the circumstance but you know that you you wouldn't impact driver visibility you wouldn't you know aesthetically you know people it's subjective to some extent right whether or not they add clutter to uh the front of a property or not and and certainly that there' be uh appropriate illumination are the reasons that I could think of off the top of my head um that's what I'm going with okay no I mean look that's that's reasonable and it sounds like maybe a past counsel to somebody on it didn't like the idea of Monument signs so like just looking at this application I can't really understand what the big deal is and I personally certainly prefer them to a big old sign on a building when I see the signs of on a building I think of like a city and and even though we're we're not far from the city we try to uh distinguish ourselves so uh that's it yep thank you okay thank you Mr Kino Mr Murman I have a couple of questions um is Evergreen Medical the only commercial tenant in this building now there's a law firm there they've been there for 20 years 25 years used to used to be U used to be Sunshine Atkins now it's Atkins name yeah yeah okay so Atkins is there okay um is this safe to say that the other commercial tenant does not require any signage identification for his business externally all I can tell you is they've been as I say for 20 or 25 years and they've never had a sign okay um but the major if I recall when you uh were before the and uh The major portion of this building is for Evergreen Medical is that correct right the first and second floor the law firm's up on the third floor okay um so from a sence standpoint basically it's really only Evergreen that we're looking at and that probably needs it from your standpoint um I will make a correction to some of the testimony um if you look at your sign detail um you will see LED lamps LED lights okay all right so as I said we have no problem getting a dimmer put in if it turns out they're too bright well I just wanted to be a matter of record because there was some concerns all right um personally um I I I like your window sign and that's there that that's there now and I like the um the uh the vinyl over the vinyl sign on the door uh which I think both are very very practical um however personally I am um against Monument signs having been a board member for a while and my own personal opinion is that uh the monument sign and the other sign that you're proposing the monument sign starts approaching What I Call Sign pollution that's my personal opinion um so personally I'm I I I'm against the monument sign but for uh the other two that you have and I will also point out that if you look at the building uh mounted on the building is very large letters is a street address so if somebody is week they will see the house number or the street number on the building itself M Mr M where is that because I have I have Google Earth up that's up that's up towards the left side if I recall because I don't see I have a head on headon look here and um I don't see any number I'm not saying it's not I'm not saying it's not there that's why I just asked you where it was I have sat across the street looked at this Frontage and I can see it it's got just a house number and it's roughly two foot6 High by maybe three foot wide it's in the sign exhibit Mr bar if you look at the the left hand picture in your sign exhibit I have I have Google Maps up right now and it's it's clear it's to the left of the big big windows The Tall Windows should be I see all right yeah mine oh mine is covered by the tree that's why the the Google Earth that looking at it's got it covered up I guess but I see I see what you're talking about I see it now yep and there's no reason why you couldn't trim a foot or so off the top of that tree to make it even clearer but here we are chopping down trees when I thought we wanted trees well yes we do want trees but there's no reason why you can't prune the top of them so that your sign is more more visible if you so desire if that's your concern about people recognizing the building as they travel Kinder kamac road so that kind of um uh negates the need for for the uh the monument sign in my estimation and as I said before um I I like the sign is that you have there including the uh the numerals and um I would be um in favor of those but I would oppose anything with a monument sign that's my position okay well anyone's anyone's on the building as Mr baren pointed out I believe one of the prohibitions in the ordinances it can't be higher than 18 feet above grade that's just off the top of my head I could be wrong and it certainly appears that it would be in order to be above the trees well it is free EX in just as the pre-existence of the other Monument SS that you point out no they were approved they' they've been approved over the years um you know Riv River Edge Dino for one uh you know that's just one example I don't dispute that I don't dispute that that that there are existing ones um it's just that I don't see the need for one in this case okay that's it I'm done Mr chairman thank you Mr merman um I just have one question for the for Mr bar for the applicant um is the intention to keep the landscaped area where this sign's been proposed to be located looks like it's going into a what's what's currently landscaped area in the front there's flowers and other things is how is that going to interact with the the sign I think it's I think it's actually to the right of that area again if if the Google Earth I'm looking at not as accurate you have the walkway and then the the landscaped areas to the right and to the left of the walkway and and this is um this is to the right of that you know there's there's a space there between the walkway and the proposed sign and I think that's the existing because I I believe that's uh slightly gred there yeah so I believe it's to the right of it okay okay and certainly if the board again CE to approve it they can say that it has to be to the right of that existing Landscaping okay I I just so happened to visit the the premises today and I notic that uh the Atkins firm has a sign on the front door as well next on the glass door next to the Evergreen sign oh okay so uh I I have no further questions at this point um so let me we'll open it to uh the public for comment so moved second second thank you m Poland all all in favor hi I any oppose any abstain all right at this time we are now open to the public for comment on this application again this is the Evergreen Medical Group uh Monument sign application anybody wishing to be heard um please raise your hand on zoom and we ask that uh comments be limited just to this application only and comments will be uh limited to two minutes uh per person all right there are some members of the public present so if you're interested in commenting on this application please raise your hand nope doesn't look like anybody okay I'll look for a motion to close to the public so moved thank you m b there a second second thank you Mr Cay all in favor I I any oppose any obain okay we are now excuse me close for public comment on this application further questions or comments from the board okay I this time I will look for motion on the application okay Mr chairman I would like to uh move to approve the application subject to the conditions that have been uh discussed and agreed upon this evening okay thank you Mr Mr chairman Mr chairman I like like to uh amend that motion if I can at this point silent procedure I mean um Mr merman can ask for an amendment and if Mr feffer agrees then um then the motion could be amended but if he doesn't agree then we would have to take a vote on amending the motion well okay Miss Miss Denley I believe Roberts rules the motion needs a second until it's been seconded uh it's not for consideration once it's been seconded correct then an amendment could be uh could be made without objection if if the maker of the motion was so inclined if not then it has to go to a vote that's correct if someone if it's if the motion's not seconded then the board could hear another motion yes so a motion has been made it needs to be seconded I'm going to second the motion okay so we have Mr feffer motion's now been seconded by by the mayor so now it would be appropriate according to Robert's rules for Amendment uh a friendly Amendment could be made if it isn't friendly then it has to go to a vote okay Mr merman okay um my my amendment is any references to the uh Monument sign be deleted okay so Mr feffer it's your motion do you consider this motion to be friendly if you say no it means you don't want it to be altered in this manner and then it would go to a vote by the by the body to uh uh to forcibly amend the motion thank you uh no I do not consider that amendment to be a friendly Amendment so I cannot accept it okay so now the amended motion needs a second for the body to consider amending if not the amended motion fails I'll second okay now the amended motion has been moved and seconded it is open for debate discussion and then uh a vote uh but the maker of the motion has a right to speak to that motion so Mr merman you have a right to speak to your Amendment okay I believe I've already stated my objection that there is sufficient signage uh without the monument sign um and that um it uh is to me uh uh not preferential and falls in my personal category of sign pollution I've already stated all of those in my prior testimony now the floor is open to position that any member of the body wishes to make in for or against Mr castlin you would be as the chair uh you would call on the individuals as you saw fit okay I think Mr kigo has has a uh statement yes listening to Mr merman um is always educational and and after he spoke I tend to agree with him and I'll go a little further I the orientation of the sign bothers me because the orientation then takes away the purpose which is to advertise the presence of the uh business to people who are heading to that business and are looking for the signage so um and I tend to agree and and also looking at the sign the sign is very nice and the the emblem itself is very nice but I don't think it helps it's going to help anybody see where the business is if you're driving it's kind of confused I mean not not that it's confusing but it's it's very packed in with a lot of information there's the tree and then there's the words and everything so for those reasons I I I also agree with Mr merman and and taking into consideration what he said about um too much signage uh I can understand that too so I think these are considerations that uh we do need to make to keep our town uh looking as Queen as it always does and and even more so as we hopefully fix the that quote so those are my comments thank you anyone else wish to be heard on the amended motion okay so miss I imagine at this time we take a roll call vote on the amended motion well we're taking a roll call vote on whether to amend the motion if that passes then there'd be then there'd be a debate and and vote on the motion as amended yep so first we have to decide whether we want to amend or not so this vote is on if you vote Yes on this it's to amend the motion this is not the final determination on the application okay Mr Mayor I abstain Mr klin no Miss Boland yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer no Mr cray no Mr kigo yes councilman glass so if understand there two things one is our ordinance does not permit this and the other is there are viable options to this so I vote Yes okay and Mr gibons no so the vote is tied Miss Marina I'm going to change my vote okay um I agree that we do have a question of sign pollution but I also feel that uh our businesses uh you know do sometimes have a difficulty I've gone to that building and driven right by it because though this uh markings for the numbers are very large at different times of the year they're difficult to see especially um um in um in the middle of the summer so I am going to vote no to the amendment okay so all right so the motion to amend the motion failed now Mr feffer original motion to approve the application with conditions it still stands and the mayor has seconded that motion we can take a vote on Mr feffer motion to approve with conditions what are the conditions specifically please so the conditions that I have are that the applicant will comply with the board's recommendation that the LED lights um in the sign be reviewed within six months by the board planner and Zoning officer and that a dimmer switch be installed if necessary and then that the applicant agreed to that the sign will be turned off after business hour at the end of the business hours which is between 7 and 7:30 pm okay just to clarify the dimmer switch thing I think what we're trying to do is to limit the lumens of the signage and that is something that is probably Beyond us so the experts would have to tell us what the limitation of loomin should reasonably be I don't think we actually meant a physical dimmer switch that we we return so we should make some uh notation about when we get some expert uh advice on it whatever the limitation of lumens reasonably for you know businesses is because we don't want a super bright sign that all of a sudden is you know blind so understood yep um and and I think one other condition was that the sign the monument sign would be installed to the right of existing Landscaping on the property correct thank you all right so that is the motion it was seconded if there's no other questions I'll take the roll call vote all right Mr Mayor yes Mr klin yes Miss Boland no Mr merman no Mr feffer yes Mr Craig yes Mr Keno no councilman glass again if I understand this correctly it's not in compliance with our ordinance and there are viable alternatives to allow them to accomplish what they're trying to accomplish and comply with our ordinance so I'm sorry I vote no all right Mr Gibbons yes okay the motion passed he that's it thank you very much okay appreciate your consideration yes thank you thank you Mr Barrett next item on our agenda this evening under new business is quality home developers LLC the property is 312 web Avenue this is block 302 Lot 12 applications seeking a proposed subdivision of one law to two so the uh the applicant I know the I saw the engineers here M sty I just want to make sure for councilman glass and myself this is not considered a d variance correct correct there are no variances proposed on this application very good thank you Mr chairman Thomas J Barrett for the applicant and if I could just tell uh Mrs Soro U you you can leave now okay thank you you're welcome have a good night you as well sorry Mr Barrett didn't know you working a double header tonight yes okay FL is yours Mr Barrett okay so I at this point um I would like to call upon our engineer Mr mcclelen to go over the changes that have been made since we last appeared uh I believe it was on September 25th um at which time we had requested certain waivers from provisions of the ordinance as to information that was to be provided so I just like him to go over all of the additional information and perhaps then we can also comment upon Mr coster's review letter uh the most recent of which arrived at about five o'clock tonight and just for the record Mr mclen was previously sworn and qualified and is still under oath tonight so Mr ml perhaps if you uh were to share your screen you could show the board the changes that you made to the plans we'll do one second I would just like to interrupt one more time Miss sttinley I was not here for that I did not review the video am I permitted to continue so this is a unique situation where the applicant the application was previously presented um and denied due to some missing information the applicant roted requested reconsideration at the last meet board meeting on October 9th the board authorized the reconsideration um and now the applicant is presenting the new information and um all the members present can participate in in the re-hearing thank you for that classific clarification did everybody see my screen yes yes okay this is just just a brief um recap um it's 312 web Avenue it's a corner lot and web Avenue and 6 Avenue it's um a 15,000 SQ foot lot and we're looking to subdivide it into two equal pieces at 7500 square feet a piece um everything about both Lots will be fully conforming um and the removal of the existing house will will eliminate an existing nonconformity as far as the front yard on Sixth Avenue where it's 21.6 feet where um it's supposed to be 30 feet and you can just see here this is the blue lines is the existing lot 100 by 150 and this red line here is the subdivision line to divide it into two equal pieces um what we I'm sorry um could this be marked as exhibit um A1 and could you just identify the date of the most recent revision sure so it's um the plan is minor subdivision um dated July 22nd 2024 last revised October 3rd 2024 okay thank you um what we didn't have and what we requested for a waiver last time was for structures within 200 feet and drainage uh pipes within 200 feet um based on my field presence and using Google Earth because we can't survey everybody's property you can see here um I I placed all the houses within 200 ft on the property the shade here uh here Lot 12 that's that's the subject property this dotted line that goes around is 200 ft and you can see in [Music] blue all the existing structures and then if I zoom in you have all the all the drainage pipes inlets there's uh two here on the other side of web uh another two as you go past our property and then they weren't within 200 ft but I put the Dage structures that were on 7th Avenue as well that's the only change and i' I'd be happy to answer any questions anybody might have well we did you and I did have the opportunity to review the uh revision two of Mr ca's report and um just looking here for the uh right he did ask for uh confirmation that there will not be either individual water supply or sewage disposal is that correct yeah will be uh using um Town water and town sewer it won't be septic systems or Wells thank you and um in terms of uh reses and acquiring uh sidewalks um we're seeking a waiver could you describe the neighborhood based on your visits and yeah so just in in the area um six and web there are there are no sidewalks currently um so it basically would just be sidewalks in front of our property not connecting to anything so that's why we're we're asking for a waiver for sidewalks and then uh they did have some further request though they're looking for Tren detail for the proposed sanitary sewer and including back fill and pipe material you can provide that I can all right and uh also specifying the type of connection that would be made to the existing sanitary sewer yes all all that will be included on the revised site plan you want me to bring up the site plan now or all right let's just we'll finish the letter and then yeah we can address it uh and then also a road restoration detail which was further addressed in letter of late this afternoon that I can provide as well and there was a there was a request to uh locate the uh percolation tests on the site plan itself yeah so I did one kind of in the center of the property but if it's report we can we can do an additional one yeah it says that they uh they recommend that it be conducted at the location of each storm waterer system so would that require two more then or just one more well if I can bring up my sight plan if you want to mark this or this was submitted to the town as well I'll just mark it as exhibit A2 and if you could just provide the most recent date sure there was a site plan July 22nd 2024 last revised October 17 2024 um so we did the test hole right in the middle of the two lots which is in the vicinity of this um durage here um uh in my opinion I don't think we we should have to we should do three different ones um if we did I would just move these Chambers to the back and then we do an additional one in the front so um we can add we can add addition one additional um percolation test and then also the um we're advised uh that structural calculations are required for the retaining walls if they're in excess of four feet in height which includes the buried block so I understand above grade they're only four feet but below grade there would be additional additional height yeah so as you see on my plan here I have Pro proposed Keystone wall max four feet high to be designed by others so structural calculations will have to be provided I understand okay and that of course uh if the board see St could be um a condition of the approval yes similar to the additional percolation test Etc and then in this afternoons um letter uh the uh Mr CA says that the uh curbs along web need to be replaced are you familiar with their condition or not I don't remember looking when I was out the side with the condition so I I assume Mr Kasa can uh advise us I I assume they need replacing I'm sure he wouldn't put it in just for purpose of putting something in and then also he spoke about I don't know if you had the opportunity to see the updated letter I have not no all right so it's in in the ordinance it basically says that if you're going to dig up Sixth Avenue then milling and restoration will be required if the trenches for the proposed utility connections are within 50 ft on Center will will ours be within 50 feet on Center I guess is the question um 50 fet I'm not sure I'd have to look at the the revised letter to see how it's it's worded okay this the one that came later today yeah I sent it over to you before it's on um it's under miscellaneous comments not sure what page that is yeah I mean if it falls under that then we'll comply okay very good anything further Mr mcau no I know they you know we want the Bo want to see individual site plan so I have that here um as you can see it's basically the same drawings a subdivision plan this is the the red subdivision line and then the the the proposed Wellings are in red as well you have U you have the proposed 12.01 which is the one that becomes a a normal um lot fronting on Sixth Avenue that's uh two-car garage and a a front loading driveway and and then we have lot 12.02 um which is a corner lot and the garage is off of web Avenue and everything is conforming it conforms with all the bulk table as I mentioned the subdivision is fully conforming as far as all those requirements and um both of the proposed Lots will be conforming in front side combined side rear Building height building coverage impervious coverage um and and total improv coverage thank you nothing further of Mr MCL okay let me uh turn to our professionals this time um Mr dekin I'll start with you uh nothing chairman okay Mr baren sure just a couple quick points of clarification so uh I guess I'll Direct this question to Mr Barrett or whoever can answer it is this plan intended to be conceptual or this is the plan that's going to be submitted to the building department this this this would be the plan uh I put a lot of time into this so I figured it' be easy just to do it once so this this would be the plan to be submitted to building department okay understandable um I I just wanted to note that with respect to block excuse me lot 12.02 which is the one toward the the bottom of the South does not show a rear yard it as required I think you have the coverage capacity to do that but but again uh as part of a recent ordinance change we require that you include some sort of amenity so that some prospective home buyer doesn't have to come back to the board seeking variant relief again I think you're at about 30% coverage where 35% allowed so you should be able to put in a compliant patio but um I think at you know as a condition you could probably include that with your submission to the building department assuming this this mov just just for for my education do you just have to provide this the coverage for it or do you actually have to provide an amenity that's a fair question uh so you're saying you've left the space so the perspective homeowner would have the discretion to design it according to their liking I think that's a fair inter I'll I'll defer to Mr dein but I think that's a fair interpretation thank you yeah I left I left 5.3% for the rear yeah I agree with Mr Baron's second assessment that it uh the allotment should be there but it's up to the buyer if he wants to do a patio or a deck and I can add from the council's point of view that was the intent from when the ordinance was changed fair fair comment thank you Mr Barrett yes just quickly uh I if you look at my chart I have improved coverage with a star and that says excludes rear yard so um on lot 12.01 we're at 30% at lot 12.02 we're at 29.5% so we left at least 5% um for for the rear yard improvements okay good and you you have to be compliant on parking height you looks like you've done the calculation so you know that would be reviewed at the building department phase um and I think you testified the last hearing that you've submitted for the the re the new tree removal replacement permit so uh um I I assume that's under review in the burrow uh beyond that I I have no further questions um the subdivision itself is fully conforming this uh plan depicts what what is intended to be developed okay thank you Mr Burns uh Mr Costa chairman okay just a few things maybe just the the easiest one first the only question I have is this should really be the subdivision because two things the ml single family are exempt from a site plan so it really shouldn't be considered site plan um it should be the actual subdivision and that's that's what the board should actually approve would be this and again I understand the dwellings are probably conceptual there's going to be some difference to them but I guess it shows you pretty much what's going to happen also on this plan there's soil moving um calculations and again in front of the board the board has a discretion either approve it or deny it but I think this should be testimony as to how much soil is being moved around um I think there's excess coming out so you're going to dig basement you're going to take it out you're going to move it off site which direction how many trucks what time of day so on and so forth but if you're not ready for that then then you're going to have to come back again because of the amount of soil that you're actually moving off the site I do have soil moving calculations um for lot 12.01 we're removing 204 uh cubic yards yeah I don't know if you actually submitted for a soil movement if you actually did the paperwork that I don't know I don't have that I I I don't believe we did Mr Costa I don't believe any formal application um was submitted we thought that providing on the plan might be sufficient I think all the calcul I think there's an actual permit that you got to fill out um all right so then going back to this is this the actual subdivision then they subed exhibit A1 was the subdivision plan I believe but again this isn't a site plan it's a they're single family homes it's exempt from site plan so it shouldn't really be titled site plan it's actually the subdivision if this is what they're intending to build this St AG this location did drainage calculations for this we can we can amend the title of it that's not a problem okay so then this will be that okay um as far as the the actual soil uh we weren't present when that that was done it's I believe it's a K1 or a K2 if I'm not mistaken which is uh so characteristics are not great as far as infiltration so depending on where the new ones are I'd like our office to be present during that and then to make sure that this is actually going to work um the other thing as far as the roadway six is is relatively new so if you tear it up with all the improvements obviously you won't want that fixed uh my other recommendation would be once uh they they submit all that information if it is approved tonight then I would recommend just a a not a full-blown developers agreement but a I I think Brian used to call it a short developers agreement just to make sure that all these improvements are done correctly and in accordance with the approved plan but that would be it and Mr CER if I could ask you a question so can we can we submit an application with the uh you know as a condition of approval to submit an application that satisfies you for the soil movement of course absolutely thank you okay you're welcome chairman that would that would basically be it okay thank you Mr Costa uh let me turn to the board now for questions uh I'll start with Miss Bolan oh sorry Miss Boland you're on mute good sorry about that um my only question is the uh retaining Ro going through the two lots as for as far as uh I guess maintenance is just at the property line if something goes WR if if there's any damage to the retaining walls actually I think if I can Comm to Chairman I apologize I think our recommendation was to break it back so they in they act independently just in case if one Falls it doesn't impact the other and they they're completely separate okay we'll comply with that I apologize for jumping in I I know you're a better engineer than me I appreciate it nope that that was all I had thank you Miss band uh Mr Mayor yes a couple of things uh Mr Costa maybe I didn't understand you correctly but I thought you said that there should be some testimony about soil Movement we do have flooding issues in town um so I didn't hear that testimony uh they have to come well they have to come back okay so Mr you're saying that basically since they have to come back we can't approve tonight no so the application tonight is only for subdivision of the lot okay this is there's there's no application for the soil moving permit tonight there's no site plan application tonight the applicant provided that those details just to give extra information to the board to understand why the sub division was happening that helps me thank you my next question um I don't think that's 100% the the plan that's going to get approved tonight is going to show the drainage it's going to show the location of the driveways it's going to show the size of the houses it's going to show that's what's getting approved if they deviate from that then they need to come back but that unless I'm mistaken the the board isn't just approving a line on a plan and thank you and come back and do whatever you want the testimony that the testimony that was provided was that this is a subdivision application that the the houses that are the single family homes that are going to be developed on the property are going to be fully conforming with the burrow code if it's not conforming in any aspect of the burrow code they have to come back is that correct Mr Barrett yes so then the plan that shows the drainage as as shown on that the other plan that's going to be retitled is just conceptual no Mr Mullen no this is this is as far as I concern this plan is final so I think I think the confusion might be arising as Mr Costa has pointed out the ordinance excludes single family homes from site plan approval so Mr mclelan in an attempt to keep all of the information together did entitle the plan site plan but we can call it the subdivision plan and it has as Mr Costa has pointed out has all of the drainage has the location of the driveways it has the uh the utility connections um everything is there so you I think it's a matter of semantics we can just call that the subdivision plan because this this subdivision if it's approved by the board will be perfected by the filing of Deeds which need to be signed by the chairman and Secretary of the board uh after they've been prepared and I think that is to occur within 190 days of of the board's approval assuming they approve so this is my concern uh as mayor uh we have um we have issues of flooding when soil is when properties are regraded and we have residents who are getting their homes their backyards one resident is is under by about six to eight inches on uh any given day so if hold on a second please uh sorry background noise so it's my understanding based on the testimony that I've heard and I could have heard it wrong that there is not simply going to be a removal of um soil to uh accommodate a basement um but there's going to be regrading and that's the part that I'm I'm asking about right now how is that regrading going to take place and if you're not ready to testify then I'm not ready to vote because I need as I I need to know as an elected official that the the nearby um lots are not going to be flooded and I'm going to get a phone call in a year and a half from a resident saying uh they put in these homes they regraded it and now uh my backyard or my front yard is getting flooded so that's my first concern first and foremost concern I also have a concern about um the request to wave the sidewalks I know sidewalks are are not there but that doesn't mean that we don't want that it's a public safety feature I've walked those streets you know to uh knock on people's doors during campaigns and I realize how treacherous it can be in areas where there are no sidewalks um I it's my hope that we might be able to we we do have residents currently now over by the high school I believe who are asking for us to put in sidewalks so if the subdivision was to go through I would expect sidewalks to be put in I would not wish for that to be waved for public safety issue again as elected official it is my uh responsibility to be concerned about public safety and uh uh I know that this will be non-contiguous because there will not be other sidewalks but one way or another we're hoping that we might be able to um extend our sidewalks throughout the town uh to make it safe and this Council has made a commitment to that Council woman besed was able to get us a grant to reduce sidewalks near the junior high and we are doing we are doing cicap curbs and everything else so those are my two concerns and if um and and they would affect my vote but I'd like to go back now to miss sttinley and Mr Costa and Mr Barrett is there going to be testim is there going to be a regrading of the property and if so can testimony be provided tonight because without it I I could not vote Yes M Mr mclen sure so yes um I'll share my screen again so as you can see under existing conditions um the what the the property slopes from 6th Avenue um to West and it there's an existing house there with no drainage system and um the the certain parts of the the the grade is very steep with the addition of the houses all the water that falls in those areas will be collected into our storm water system Additionally the water that falls on the driveway on lot 12.01 that water will be collected in store in our storm water system driveway on lot 12.02 will be directed to web Avenue and that the water that currently fell in this area and went onto adjacent property will now be directed to web Avenue additionally we have inlets throughout this property we have we have a Swale along the side of here with an inlet we have a um just interrupt for a second would you define Swale for me sure so it's a um it's like a a a ditch so it's see if I have anything here I can kind of U relate it to so let me zoom in so this is a Swale here this blue line right so this grade in here is 98 this grade in here is 100 and here's 99 so this is 100 right here would be 999 so it it you have two higher areas that slope down to a lower area that that forms a channel where the water is directed to an inlet so all the water that falls in the front here is collect it in this swell and goes to this Inlet right here and same thing on the other side you have a swell in between our property and lot 11 and that water is also collected in Inlet so we're collecting the roof water from all the homes we're collecting the roof we're collecting the water from one driveway and we're collecting um the water from the swells and we're putting into our drainage system so it's not running off the site like it is under existing conditions additionally we're flatting the gray in the rear you can see from here it goes from 99 all the way down to 92 now with the addition of the retaining oall it goes from 98 down to 96 so it's it's a twot drop in this in this area over about uh 35 ft or so where under existing conditions it's a 6ot slope so it it gives the it levels off the property gives the water that's not collected in the uh inlets more time to to run across the grass and um you know percolate into the ground so uh th those factors the the catching the the roof water catching the driveway runoff catching some of the the runoff on the property with u via swells and flattening flattening the rear of the property um you know we're Lessing the amount of water that's going to come off the site Mr Mayor if I may give you a Layman's uh definition it's basically a sh it's basically a shallow ditch okay shallow ditch um Mr Costa based on that testimony do you feel that this is an improvement in the current conditions um something similar to what the current conditions or does this a detriment to the current conditions well again mayor you going to um two things you basically you're going to Plateau the backyard so now you have a steep slope now you're going to Plateau it so you get a usable backyard and to achieve that you're building a 4T high wall in the rear portion of the property so you're you're taking the the the excavation from the basement and then adding it to the the rear portion of the property building a retaining wall and then leveling it out uh to a twoot drop instead of a from 98 to to 92 instead of a 6ot drop um you're putting again but it it's all based on whether or not the soil can can take it based on uh I'm not sure exactly where the the boring was taken but it's what was submitted it's a it's a 6 in per hour um infiltration rate which is which is nothing so you know if you go back to Ida it was a 6inch storm 7inch storm um in in probably an hour so if you have one of those storms the system gets overwhelmed and everything is going to go towards that if it doesn't perk into to the ground everything is being collected in in the ctech chambers in the rear portion of the property the retaining wall is dry laid so it allows water to go through it that's how that works um so if it doesn't work could it put more water into the into the people's backyards of course and that's why they need to do the additional testing to make sure it works um this plan doesn't show it but I think the other portion or portion of this plan showed the drain there's a there's a pipe in the front of this if I'm not mistaken so Mr Costa in your professional opinion as the engineer is this plan sufficient with the condition that the new borings May if if the borings hold out or or and if the borings do not um show that show that that the drainage is is not sufficient do you what would you require of the uh applicant and should that be part of the uh should that be part of our our um conditions for approval if if the soil conditions do not allow this to work as designed then they need to redesign it obviously um again if there's storm sewer in front of this if there's a pipe you might be able to redirect some of that water into that into the municipal system which would then have less impact on the Neighbors in the rear so you can look at that also because they driveway they're picking up with a Tren strain for whatever reason um it's actually flowing I guess towards the garage which in my opinion that creates another another possible aggravation down the down the line if that fails then you're putting water into somebody's garage um where the grades are are close enough where you could redirect it the opposite direction towards the street and and redirect some of that water take the the roof water redirect it to the front not to the rear so there's certainly things you you should do and can do but again if you don't have the information you need to provide the information and find out exactly what it is before you can make an intelligent decision so Mr Costa based and and miss sttinley again you need to help me based on these testimonies based on your testimony Mr Costa is this ready for a vote or or or are there too many um insufficient insufficient information for for us to know that the adjacent properties are being protected from um flooding you could you don't know right now you do not know and the only way you can know is if you do the additional testing first thing second thing is they if from Mr Barrett they didn't put in for a soral moving application so the board can't vote on it um they would have to come back so if I may the application tonight is for a subdivision with no variances the applicant has agreed to comply with all of the burrow Engineers reports comments um and has agreed to submit a soil moving permit when it gets to that point at this time right now that that's not what the application is about so miss sttinley you're saying saying it's not remain to the motion not for the motion for the subdivision I know Mr mclen testified that these are the plans that they're going to be submitting for approval with the with the bureau but they also agreed that the plans can be revised based on the buau engineers comment letters and they're not specific to they're not necessary for the subdivision approval in my opinion miss dley Mr Costa and Mr dekin if we find that the soil samples show that this plan is insufficient for proper Water Management would then the um the building permit be denied or in other words is there is there a if I vote Yes tonight is there a safeguard that will make sure that I'm not going to be getting phone calls from the neighbors saying their properties are flooded and I can only know that if if I know that Mr Costa's review of the water management is binding so that's what I guess I'm asking uh does if we approve tonight and that we find that this is insufficient Water Management then would the building not commence I I believe that that's cons I'm sorry I'm sorry you can go ahead Mr dekin okay thank you um any uh submission for building permits uh are predicated on prior approvals uh the burrow engineer needs to approve the site plan soil moving application and so forth so it's all up to the burrow engineer to evaluate what was presented uh and then uh and get then go forward from that when we get that approval uh then we're required to uh release those permits but not until then so miss dley am am I correct in saying that there are safeguards and that I can trust that if I vote Yes tonight those safeguards would be honored yes that regardless of the testimony that was provided the applicant would have to go through the process um of getting burrow engineer approval for the development of these Lots but to help support the board's decision the applicant has already agreed to comply with the burough Engineers comments and recommendations and make the changes that have been described and um if the soil testing comes back saying that it's not good enough as it's designed today then the applicant would have to revise their plans and that would happen regardless of the testimony that was provided tonight and miss sttinley you have that in your notes so that when we do move to a motion that would be all recorded correct yes I do and I believe Mr Barrett unless he has a problem with that I would include that in the in any resolution or or motion so I feel comfortable with that issue Mr Barrett Mr mckenley uh I'm I'm looking I I feel very strongly about the sidewalks and I'm wondering if you uh would withdraw that waiver um and I I ask you to consider that and that's all and I thank you so I have to Mr Mayor I have to call upon uh Mr Mr Michael the uh the applicant oh I'm sorry that's right Mr Michael on that question yeah maybe uh we go all right M Mr Michael um so you were pre previously sworn and you still remain under oath today good evening everyone so David the mayor is requesting that sidewalks be installed uh on the uh Sixth Avenue and on web yeah we can comply with that it's it's also a safety issue it's not problem no problem Mr Mayor thank you thank you all I appreciate your time I know that was a little bit lengthy but uh I I really do appreciate that I would just say mayor you know we've invested a lot of effort in putting the ADA Compliant sidewalks in so we would need that of course of course councilman while you're while you're there any comments from any further comments on the uh or questions for the applicant yeah oh thanks um Mr chairman I you know again this is not it's confusing I don't have any questions or comments related to the subdivision the application for the subdivision um but I do have a question and it's just um for consideration you don't even it's almost rhetorical um the southern lot um the rear setback is shown on the plans from the proposed dwelling to be 25 fet uh I believe that's what the ordinance requires so I'm wondering because of that if there is in fact room for amenities in that backyard but again you know I don't think that's needs to be answered tonight um because we're not um we're not um evaluating the site plan okay thank you Mr thank you councilman uh Mr Craig yeah just two two questions and or comments um one I I I I found this to be very perplexing because I had understood that what we were looking at today was approving the subdivision or not and any other concerns issues whether it be related to the soil permit um or any other uh part of the design and execution of building the new properties out would be subject to all of the engineering reviews and all the building permits and all the processes that anybody who's going to do that is going to be subject to so I think we're getting very far a field on what we're supposed to be doing here tonight um and just as a general comment uh this is the third or fourth um subdivision that uh I've sat on in the last couple of years and this is the first one that actually meets the requirements um every other one we've you know manage some semantic argument to say we can create a non-conforming lot and then we'll allow for variances but that's not the way it works you have to create the property then you could give variances if the property was conforming this is the first time we've taken a single property and subdivided it and had two conform Lots so I don't really see any any um reasonable argument that says it shouldn't go forward so that's what I got to say Thank you Mr C Mr Gibbons uh my main concerns as I had last time uh is with water um I'm very concerned that the neighbor uh Downstream not sure which direction that is um you know is going to be getting water from this um you know especially hearing that the the soil as of what we've heard is not sufficient or at least we don't think it's sufficient um so I hope that you know if this goes through that you know more Extreme Measures are taken to make sure that the person Downstream is not going to get flooded with water um you know because I you know I know the house will be sold and a homeowner will own it and it'll then become their problem so I just want to make sure that that's going to be um I don't want to say overly done you know but to you know a th% make sure that we're not creating more water problems in the town um as the mayor alluded to earlier that we have all over and I'm sure we're going to hear from some neighbors that are concerned about water as well so uh those are my points thank you Mr given Mr feffer yes thank you um um I I was going to say a a lot of what Mr cray has already said so I won't repeat that I will say for the record that I think the majority if not all of the board members are concerned about the water issue but given the fact that we are only voting on the subdivision application and that the rest of this uh site plan is not being voted on tonight uh and is and is going to be subject to intensive review and possibly probably revision uh and we're not voting on the site plan tonight uh then I have no further questions or comments at this time thank you Mr faffer Mr Keno the problem with the water argument is that we're not going to know about the water problems until after all this is built up and the residents come to us and say there's a water problem and I think we know in town There's a water problem we've just spent I don't know Mr Mayor how much was it to fix that uh that water problem down in in on that paper Road between more than million dollars yeah so that that's that's what we had to spend to fix help our residents who were literally underwater I I can't see and and by the way I I understand that what we're talking about is simply a line down the middle that's all we're talking about today everything else I I fully understand that but we don't live in a bubble right we know what we're talking about is eventually that the two houses and two driveways and sidewalks are going to be put on this property and we're going to try to manage water but I don't know as far as I can tell the water situation all over has gotten worse lately so we can't live in a vacuum when we we're looking at this application so that's my concern but if all we're voting on is a line I will say this Mr Mayor I think your instincts are right because I think once we vote the light line in this is a um an avalanche that doesn't stop these houses get built and five years from now whoever's sitting on this board or on the council is going to hear from Neighbors who are going to be get begging for help so that's my that's my comment on this uh and I thank you for your time okay thank you Mr kigo Mr merman yeah I don't see why we can't have a simple Subdivision map made where we simply take the parcel as it is and put the line in and make two approved lcks without showing all the improvements just as I Mr caser and Mr Barons why can't we do that why can't we just subdivide this piece of land with the this very Mr merman this board denied that to have them come back to show you the what's on the plan that's why they came back and they and to come back I thought they were coming back for a soil moving and I'm going to put this out there if all you're doing is putting a line on the plan and you approved that you have two conforming Lots then they have to go get building permits so on and so forth in order to get the building permit they need a soil moving permit it's at my discretion whether or not I feel comfortable to approve it or send it back to this board which quite frankly would a steep slope and x amount of cubic yards of fill and ripping up the street that we paved they're going to come back to this board so you can approve the line only to push the can or kick it down the street to bring it back to the board anyway to look at all of these things that's all I'm saying because again that's it that's that's the main thing and quite frankly the we weren't present when they did the soils the letter that was submitted says 6 Ines per hour which is nothing and if it doesn't work you have people downhill that are going to be affected and we had residents here at the last meeting saying they're concerned and a lot of the board members are concerned and quite frankly if it doesn't work the mayor's phone's going to ring the councilman's phone's going to ring and then you know who else's phone if I'm still here then my phone rings and says now how do we fix this we don't want to be that you're not going to approve it unless all of the information is satisfactory to you and and it's coming back to this board no question and and I don't want to play I don't want to play a philadelph attorney many years ago there was a case janovic versus wood Woodcliff Lake I happen to be involved Greg me was the attorney you guys can do that through the soil movement you can look at everything through the soil movement no question about it that's that's definite Mr Costa I I agree with you but that's not what the application is tonight and and there's been plenty of testimonies saying that but then I don't understand why we're doing if if this was denied if it was denied because of a ly down a plan and they came back to show stuff that you're saying it isn't on it tonight but how do you get over race judicata how do you go forward and approve the plan you denied there's no change Mr chairman point of information Mr chairman it wasn't denied Mr chairman Mr pepper just I I think we're getting into very murky Waters here and it's getting more confusing than less my recollection and we have minutes that we approved uh in the past for the last time this was before the board but my recollection matches up with Miss steinle's statement that the last and even what Mr CA just said a moment ago that previous ly this project was put before the board as simply a subdivision and the board was not comfortable with that because people on the board were saying that we need to know what you plan to put on this property what you plan we need more details we're not just going to approve a line so the applicant has come back now with this new uh you know what what they first called a site plan then a they agreed to amend it because it's not the final version of a site plan and we're not voting on the site plan the my understanding is that the whole purpose of all the details that we've been going through and that what the applicant has presented us with tonight as simply before us because the last time the proposal was to barebones for the board there wasn't enough uh detail there wasn't enough meat on the bones but the application is still still just a subdivision application it's just drawing a line but now we have a lot more detail to give us an idea a general picture of what the applicant is envisioning now we are not voting on that Vision that Vision still has to go through all the review processes that Mr Costa and others have referenced but tonight we're simply taking that information from the applicant as additional details that will allow us to decide whether we are comfortable with drawing the line and approving the subdivision so I think that conforms to um what Miss steinley said and it's you know to me it's just a subdivision application we're not approving anything related to drainage construction coverage site coverage anything like that because all of that has to still go through the vetting process and if necessary it still has to come back to us I I don't just I was not present at the October 9th meeting so I won't I won't make any comment on that but what I'm hearing I don't disagree with you based on the application this is this is for subdivision only um and I think just for accuracy's sake it wasn't denied we just allowed them to come back with more detail it was we didn't deny it when they the application was denied and Mr Barrett requested reconsideration which is permitted I stand correctly yeah as a procedural matter was denied um Mr merman before I move on any further comments yes of course I I I have grave doubts about approving as a subdivision all these details that's on the skite plan or whatever you want to call it uh W with with with the chambers and everything else and let me let me start telling you where my engineering concerns are um Mr ca's letter um which was number two revision um States um that approximately 30 trees are about throughout the what do you call uh without the current throughout the current site and and it appears that they're going to be removed well that tells me that you're going to go out there with your equipment strip the site totally clear which is now Barren which now subject to uh run off and and soils are flowing in all um during your construction operation um I I would like to see uh some kind of a temporary plan where you're going to take all that construct runw and put it into some kind of a holding Basin or what have you likewise um all of that right now you're probably going to put a SKT fence along that property line to the uh to to the West there and uh that's not going to hold any any uh soil uh coming down that bare slope you need to do some provisions on that and I'm not comfortable uh calling it a site plan approval with all these details that I know are going to change um likewise uh that was the main my main concern um I don't want to see water flowing on to the people uh to the West during during construction including the associated mood and everything else I think I need more information if you're going to start showing me details uh of Chambers and everything you've got to carry them out to the throughout the construction uh sequence and that that's the summation of my concerns okay and basically I still feel why can't we do do the and I know you've gone around and around simple dividing of of the property and then will'll go forward from there so um you can argue about all you want about this being a subdivision but you call it a subdivision you got a heck of a lot of details half of which you need are probably not going to work in reality during construction well again Mr Murray I think just to just to reiterate I think the the intention here was not to show some was more of a conceptual possibility of what might be shown with the subdivide property not the subdivision itself I think we we we have enough to understand what the what the pure the subdivision aspect of this application is is to create two compliant lots and I think that's where our analysis needs to well let's put a note let's put a note on your drawing and big ball letters and say that it's uh not only for a subdivision purposes and the details that you're showing are meaningless Mr merman do you have the the plan that's just titled minor subdivision that was dated October 3r yes I'm looking at it right now and so you're saying that that has too much detail to be considered just the so are you going to are we voting on this minor subdivision uh um on this minor subdivision plan that you're referencing to it all it does show the new is that what we're voting on that's what that's what we're voting on this evening the site plan we're not referencing any W of side installation of sidewalks or what have you all of that is to be captured in the review process because the appc the subdivision application does not have us taking all those items into account no not taking on those this evening your your motion tonight would be to vote the acceptance of this uh minor subdivision plan only correct then why we having all this other discussion we would ask the same question Mr we're only doing what you guys told us to do we've done it us we didn't want it I'm perplexed I'm not believing you Mr Barett I'm just saying yeah all right so whoever makes a motion the motion should be that we accept this minor subdivision only period that's it and and then and then we need to submit the soil movement application for Mr Costa's review and his determination as to what happens with that that's my understanding that would be contained as a condition within the resolution approving course and and all the other conditions that we discussed tonight can be incorporated because that's what was agreed to tonight that's what was agreed to tonight but we're only approving the subdivision but they agreed to when they go to the buau they're going to follow all those all those recommendations I'm for I'm in favor of only approving this minor subdivision tonight okay fair enough thank you sir I have a clarification question with with all those um those points that we're we're taking note of that are not actually part of the vote would they apply to somebody if this particular owner now decides to sell the two properties and let somebody else develop it would the new owner still be bound by whatever was agreed by this particular owner in in the subdiv so the way the subdivision is recorded is Mr Barrett said it will be done by deed that has to be approved by the board I review the Deeds for the subdivisions and I always incorporate language in the Deeds that the owners of the property and all of their successors heirs ass signs have to comply with the terms of the resolution that authorized the subdivision so they would be once they get the deed to their H to their lot they would have reference to this specific resolution on the property thank you thank you and Mr chairman I have a question Mr fef we could couldn't we this is a question uh approve the application but also make it subject to all the points that were agreed to tonight could it not could we not do that so that so that the points that were agreed to tonight are not just sort of suggestions for later on but actually is part of the approval of the subdivision so as conditions sub of the subdivision of approval in other words Miss styley is that something that's procedurally permissible I think that's what Mr Barrett was alluding to this whole time yes yes okay so I would suggest that we do that so I think there's a yeah I think there there was there was agreement on that on that point okay okay at this point I'm for only approving the minor subdivision period if you want to put a note on there to reference this meeting uh or what for any future purchases that's fine but I'm not approving um I developed the sub division like we showed on your site plan right that's not part of the part of the application correct then why then why reference it I believe it was just put in for informational purposes only okay um let's open to the public at this time for comment on this application I'll look for a motion please second okay I think I've got councilman glass on a first and Mr Cay on a second all in favor I I any opposed any obain all right this time we are now open for public comment on this application only and I we ask that your uh comments be limited to the subject matter of the application and at a time limit of two minutes um I do believe we have some uh yes in the audience we do have someone with their hand raised Joe maneli if you please state your name and address for the record can you hear me making sure yes okay great um name is Joe manzelli 789 6th Avenue and River Edge um I guess a comment Mr Michael like you guys have said I was at the last meeting as well if these are two conforming Lots it's just a simple subdivision you guys should approve it and the other comment is if he decided not to subdivide this and knock the house down and redo it he'd have to go through all this anyway as far as the soil removal and all that kind of testing it all too so I like you said it seems like you're putting the horse before the cart and then my second comment is um hopefully this is the the um what's being proposed is just the subdivision because if you start to say about sidewalks 6th Avenue along the entire Sixth Avenue has no sidewalks and neither does web and honestly it's a pretty pretty I live here obviously it's a pretty quiet neighborhood and a street by putting the sidewalks in there too I think you'd have more drainage issues so that's just my own two cents I'm not an engineer but that's my own two cents it's a safe thing and You' be waste ruining a lot of people's landscaping and stuff too by trying to put sidewalks in so thank you thank you Mr man did you have another question okay thank you anyone else in the public wishing to be heard comment on this application all right we do have another member so you're on your phone num the last four digits are 9029 you have to press star six on your telephone keypad okay please state your name and address for the record yes we can hear you yes Wayne Murphy uh 300 web Avenue I I live two doors uh down up the street actually and uh I I I agree with the gentleman that just spoke on 6th um it is a quiet area and I would be opposed to uh sidewalks myself so I just hope you take that that into consideration later on um that's the last thing we want um I'm technically not opposed to the subdivision um I'm concerned about the size of the houses and I'm also concerned about the runoff that's going to happen down there but that's that's for the people down below and actually the fellow next door on 6th Avenue I wouldn't be surprised if he gets some water too um but uh that's pretty much all I have to say thank you thanks for your comments anyone else anyone else in the public wishing to be heard on this application okay uh at this time I'll look for a motion to close to the public please no moved thank you m b there second second thank you Mr gibons all in favor I I any opposed any abstain okay we are now closed to the public for a comment on this application uh any further questions or comments from the board there being none I will look for a motion on the application please I move the approve the application for subdivision um and make a general note that the um owner has has agreed to participate in addressing the concerns that were brought up in the meeting tonight second one moment okay we have a motion from Mr Cay and a second for Mr Feer okay so explain the motion to me are we Mo voting for a subdivision and including all the prior comments about uh uh drainage and everything no I suggested that we approve the subdivision and just note that the owner has indicated he would participate in addressing all of those concerns that were discussed okay that's fine period thank you okay that's that's the end of my uh comment Mr chairman okay we have a we have a first we have Mr cra's motion and Mr feffer the second all right I'll do the role Mr Mayor yes Mr kaslin yes Miss Bolan yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes Mr cray yes Mr kigo yes councilman glass yes Mr GI yes okay the motion passes okay thank you very much appreciate your time thank you Mr Barrett thank you Mr Barrett all right moving on our last item on the agenda this evening under new business uh the applicant oh is uh before we get started uh Miss bow I believe you are within 200t so you're going to be Ru so we bid you good night and thank you for everything thus far hi good night everyone good night e okay uh next application is bedros and Liza Yan I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly the property 8823 bogert Road this is block 118 block 10 application is seeking approval for a proposed uh deck in the rear yard believe the applicant is here this evening yes yes we are okay um Miss D all right I will swear you both in if you please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yeah yeah and could you please both state your name and your address for the record go ahead oh bedan 823 bogur Road River Edge Thank you Lisa yes am 823 B Ro River okay thank you looks like you have your a professional with you this evening uh yes our architect M Linda Del noo okay good evening styly maybe we'll swear her in too yep I will swear you I as well please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please state your name spell your last name and provide your address for the record Linda Del Noble that's capital D L capital n o b i l e my address is 1923 Avenue Unit 1A Westwood New Jersey and could you provide the board with some background on your experience and lure yes um I have been licensed since 1986 so 38 years I've been practicing since 95 I've been in my own business I have appeared before many boards in Bergen County over the last few decades um I don't think I've ever been in River Edge but most other Bergen County um municipalities Emerson orodell Park Ridge Westwood Emerson I think I said Emerson um cler creskill okay any questions from the board on on qualifications okay thank you um for the applicant uh if you would for the benefit of the board if you could give us a a statement and summary on what it is you're looking for um from us this evening in terms of um the installation of the deck the Aesthetics of it and so forth uh chair chairman uh may I make some comments first yes um so thank you so um this review was uh done back uh a while ago and it was in the transition uh period of the uh amendments to the uh zoning ordinances so some of these uh issues have been uh corrected uh I did a it was kind of a short period of time because uh uh the uh the applicant brought it to our attention and I did the review um you know yesterday and sent it out today uh so the board probably doesn't have that I sent it to Ed you know in a short period of time but basically what it is uh is the lot coverage um is uh compliant in the respects that uh one uh the driveway uh is uh is not included in uh impervious coverage from the front of the uh house to the front of the detached garage um so that would you know fall into um you know a uh compliant uh area um and the U the issue would be basically um the um also the percentage given for a deck um which is 75% uh reduced uh so that would also um reduce the lot coverage so at this point the lot coverage is in compliance uh the only issue now that stands is building coverage uh building coverage uh did not change in the uh in the amended ordinances um so therefore they are over on their uh lot on building coverage I'm sorry um and um you know it's if the applicant wants to take it from there they they can uh but that's basically the the gist of this new uh revised zoning review that I sent out so we're only only one variant is is is up for consideration this evening at this point that is correct J okay okay um with that I I'd ask if you would go ahead and uh provide as I said before a summary of uh your intentions for installation of the deck and some of the Aesthetics with you please sure um we've been in River for seven years now and uh we live in in a house where we share a driveway with our neighbor um we don't have any backyard space to enjoy the Summers or to uh to just sit outside um the house was last renovated in 1977 so it needs a little bit of modification especially the kitchen so while renovating the kitchen we wanted to add also a deck so we can enjoy the Summers outside um and not disturb by neighbors so that they can use the driveway uh as as they wish um I the even the garages are very close to each other so if we do in front of the garage we can't because there it's very close and we'll be dist disturbing them so we do need a space to to enjoy the outside in riverge okay anything thank you uh Mr dein I'll start with you if I could anything further to d uh yes so the building coverage uh comes to um uh 26.6% which is 107.3 um square feet over uh which is over by 1.6% um that is basically what they are requesting um and uh you know that's a basically the the information that I have okay um Mr barens I I have nothing to add beyond what Mr dekin has provided okay thank you uh Mr Costa noes from Mr chairman okay thank you you're welcome um let me turn to the board at this point uh Mr Gibbons I open with you if I may uh no nothing really it's it seems like they're being uh modest in what they're doing and um it's a minor change so I have no issue with it okay thank you Mr Craig uh yeah I feel the same way okay thank you Mr feffer no comments or questions thank you thank you uh Mr Keno seems like a reasonable application thank you no comments thank you uh Mr Mayor yes no questions I'm good okay uh councilman I don't have any concerns I just have a question for clarification so I think we have in the new ordinance uh kind of a discount or deck if there if it's not um a solid surface is that being how's that being figured into the calculus here well it it's figured into uh the impervious coverage which is considered lot coverage um there was no uh reduction in building coverage there was no Amendment to the building coverage section uh with the U 25% uh so the building coverage is calculated and the deck is calculated as building coverage is no reduction because it's not it's not considered impervious rage it's just a structure so the structure is the calculations for the for building coverage so the 40 thanks Steve so the 42.7 that's with the discount no that's lot coverage that's impervious coverage okay thank you Mr Mur yes let me understand this uh the life coverage um exceeds the 25% by uh would now be 26.6 is that correct it's uh it was labeled as building coverage so there wasn't any confusion between uh lot coverage and um what was it called uh um improved lot coverage okay so now it's calculated as building coverage which is just the structures um and then lot coverage which is the structure plus impervious material so you're are you are we saying that there is no variance required for lot coverage is that correct that's correct okay so I can cross that out and I do want to note that this is a undersized lot where 7500 is required and this lot has 6732 uh square feet and let's go to The Improv lot coverage is there give me those revised numbers like the lot the lot coverage um Mr merman we changed the terminology to loot coverage and building coverage okay so the lot coverage or as you're referring it to the improved lot coverage that complies I got that what about improved lot coverage as I as I said that complies that complies so are we saying there is no variance here no that building coverage is the um okay overage the building coverage is overage by how much 1.6% or 107.3 square feet okay so and that requires a variance correct all right so what I'm saying is that 1.6% on a substandard lot is dimin really the way I look at it I guess if you ratio it out it would still be within the guidelines even though the numbers work that way all right so if somebody was make a motion for approval what what category would they be motioning they would be okay I'm sorry it would be for the building coverage variance building coverage variance okay okay okay very good all right thank you sir again minut all right all right um I have no question Miss sty I I have I have a couple questions just for the architect if you could provide just some testimony on the architectural and aesthetic features of the deck and if there's any landscaping or anything proposed sure do you want me to share my screen to show the put up the um survey sure you can do that um see they are not sure it's sharing oh here we go um okay okay um I guess you can all see that so yes so off to the left um is this is the site plan and um what we are doing here we have a a two-story brick house we have a garage in the back corner and we're going off the rear of the main house with a deck you can kind of see that it's going over like an area where there is a retaining wall because this site slopes quite a bit to the back and then it just drops down even a little bit more to the right you can see that it's very close to the property line the house and is a shared driveway because I believe both of these houses are pretty close to the property line so they have a 10-ft Shar driveway down the center and then they go off each into their own um garages um and then right now um if we look over would you like me to go through all the zoning information no just some details just okay I want some testimony about what are what is the aesthetic features and if there's anything this about the lot that makes this necessary this Vari yes um let me go through the um first I guess the floor plan if we look at the floor plan you can see um we're we're doing some modifications to the house as well well we're making a lar larger kitchen we're making a what was a tiny itty bitty powder room into a a a bathroom that has a shower and we're just reworking that space right now um if you can see over all the way to the right hand side of the plan there is a set of steps four four steps down then you come to a landing and then you go down further to the basement well on this Landing is where you now are going out to they out outside and how they enter into the rear yard which is right next to the driveway and then you have to go down this little pathway which is adjacent to the to the driveway and to the backyard so this modification in these alterations it was very important to get some access without having to go by this driveway and around the side of the house down steps Etc and have some nice outdoor space to be able to congregate um so that was the main purpose it's really on the on the floor on the um the elevation here you can see it's a non-descript deck it's a it's a basic deck it's going to be TX decking and um at this point we have not talked about doing any Landscaping it's in the back of the house it's going to be an open um you know open jointed deck so that the water can go through and we're not going to be affecting anything on the site um so that's um that's really um the project um we think that we have hardship because we have a undersized lot it's undersized in the width and it's undersized in the lot area um so that's really if we were if we were not undersized we wouldn't be here um we also think that um it's not just a hardship you also have the topography to deal with it really slopes down in the back so it's very difficult and you can kind of see that with the elevation that it's about a half a level up from the ground and then it's keep sloping down further the backyard so it'll be very difficult to do any other kind of a um outdoor space there because you'd have to be going down like a half a level um but there's also we don't feel like there's any plan other planning Alternatives either and that the benefits outweigh the detriments because the only other thing that you could do always put something on grade but it would really be then affecting grades and as we're talking about all the runoffs and everything else that you're going to get with hard surfaces this is like the perfect kind of um way to deal with um the property and the runoff and everything else um it also I know that in the master plan they were talking about and that's what you ju you guys just did um in town you had um added some the rear yard ameni a percentage there and that's what we're trying to do we're trying to just have some outdoor space we sized it accordingly so that they could have like a table out there they could have a couple chairs maybe and a barbecue and that's it and have access to their yard so we feel like it does conform to the goals and objectives of your master plan it blends with the neighborhood and it allows um the yesan family to be able to stay in this house and enjoy their yard so um I guess that's that's about I hope I answered all your questions yep you did thank you okay any further questions or comments from the board okay this time I'll look for a motion to open to the public so move okay first Mr glass I'm sorry counil MCG glass there a second second Mr Gibbons all in favor I I I oppose and abstain um styley I don't see anybody in the audience unless you do no it doesn't look like there's anyone anymore okay with that I will look for a motion to close to the public Mo thank you Mr Craig have a second councilman all in favor I st we're now closed to the public for commment on this application at this time uh I if there's no further comments or questions from the board or our professionals I'll look for a motion on the application please Mr chairman may I offer a motion please please do Mr mman um reing um B Road Lot 10 block 118 and riverid that the um drawing submitted uh um en titled proposed DEC addition and interial alteration um be approved by the land use board noting um that the building uh coverage which normally is 25% uh will result in uh a number of 22.8 which um is existing and and the U actual as construction will be 26 one and the resulting differential uh is diminish and is noted that the lot area is substandard at the 6723 square feet that the board approved that and include the usual General requirements uh that are issued by caser engineering I think that's it do I have a second second uh Mr Gibbons with a second thank you sir my only comment is that the number for the building lot coverage is 26.6% not 26.1 no I I is I got it written down is 26.6 okay yes that's correct okay so with that with that one change to a motion and a from Mr Merman and a second from Mr gibons all right I'll take the rule Mr Mayor yes Mr klin yes Mr merman yes Mr feffer yes Mr cray yes Mr kigo yes councilman glass yes Mr GI yes okay the motion passes okay enjoy your improvement good luck enjoy your improvement thank you thank you uh with that we have reached uh the end of our agenda this evening nothing further I will look for a motion to close the meeting so moved first from councilman glass second from Mr feffer all in favor I any oppose any abstain We Stand adjourned at 9:54 p.m. good night everybody