Municipal Land Use Board Meeting

BOROUGH OF RIVER EDGE LAND USE BOARD MEETING MINUTES ZOOM MEETING April 8, 2026 NOTE – Public meetings of the Municipal Land Use Board of the Borough of River Edge will be held in person in the Council Chambers on the second floor of Borough Hall, 705 Kinderkamack Road, River Edge, NJ 07661 unless further notice is provided. Meetings will be held concurrently via ZOOM (Hybrid). Members of the public may attend meetings in person or via ZOOM. To join the ZOOM meeting via smart phone, computer or tablet. The log in information and a link to the meeting will be posted on the Borough’s website at https://www.riveredgenj.org/landuse. Chairman Caslin calls the Meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll call: Mayor Papaleo – Present Chairman Caslin – Present Ryan Gibbons – Excused Councilman Glass - Present Eileen Boland - Present Mr. Chinigo – Excused Mr. Gautier - Present Mr. Salva - Present Michael Krey - Excused Ms. Levine - Present ALSO PRESENT: Marina Brown Esq., Robert Costa, Mr. Depken (via Zoom), Lisa Ciavarella (via ZOOM) Chairman Caslin asks Ms. Brown to address one housekeeping item. She states that one of the items listed on the agenda, the application for Pacific Outdoor Advertising, LLC, 14 Rt. 4 West, Block 1402, Lot 4 for preliminary and final minor site plan approval with a use, height and bulk variance relief to install and operate a two-sided static billboard, will be carried to the May 13th meeting of the Land Use Board without further notice. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Approval 2/11/26 minutes – Ms. Brown had a few edits – a few typos and a revision to state that there was actual notice that the IAAT Services, LLC application was carried on the record. Motion made for approval – So Made- Mr. Gautier; Second – Mayor Papaleo. Everyone is eligible to vote accept Mr. Salvo. A voice vote is taken. Motion passes. Approval of 2/25/26 minutes. There were some typos nothing substantive. Chairman Caslin states that with the exception of a few typographical errors he asks for a motion to approve the minutes. So Moved – Ms. Boland; Second – Mr. Gautier. Everyone is eligible to vote. A voice vote is taken. Motion passes. 3/11/26 minutes not available. No Memorialization for IAAT Services, LLC 1 COMPLETENESS REVIEW Mr. & Mrs. Powers 28 Woodland Avenue Block 115, Lot 10 Application for the installation of a new deck. Mr. Depken deems the application complete and it can be heard this evening. Ms. Brown reviewed the proofs submitted by the applicant prior to the meeting and found them to be sufficient for the Board to have jurisdiction over the application this evening. Mr. Costa states the Board can go ahead. There being no questions or comments from the Board as to completeness Chairman Caslin asks for a Motion. So Moved – Ms. Boland; Second – Mr. Gautier. Roll Call – Mayor Papaleo – yes; Chairman Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Salva – yes; Mr. Gautier yes; Councilman Glass – yes and Ms. Levine – yes. The Board’s alternate is eligible to vote this evening Motion passes. NEW BUSINESS Mr. & Mrs. Powers 28 Woodland Avenue Block 115, Lot 10 Application for the installation of a new deck. Ms. Brown swears in – Mary Powers, 28 Woodland Avenue, River Edge, the applicant. Joseph Bruno, 29 Pascack Road, Park Ridge, New Jersey (architect). Mr. Bruno goes through his credentials with the Board, and his license is current and in good standing. Mr. Bruno passes out a photograph of the rear of the home to give the Board a sense of the context of the proposed deck. Ms. Brown asks if Mr. Bruno can provide an electronic copy of the photograph. Mr. Bruno stated he could do that. Ms. Brown marks the photo, which is two sheets a cover sheet and the photograph as Exhibit A1. Mr. Bruno states that there were two variances identified, one is for building coverage at 30.58, they are existing at 25.03. He states that on the application for improved lot coverage they were at 40.43. Mr. Bruno further testifies that when he took the aera of the deck he did not take into account that the deck had open joints and pervious surface below so he was able to reduce the amount of impervious coverage because the Borough ordinance states that if there are open joints and pervious ground coverage below they only need to count 25%. So, that would reduce the impervious coverage to 36.28% where 35% is permitted. The deck is 20 feet wide, 16 feet off the house, with two staircases. The deck is approximately 3 feet above the adjacent ground. Mr. Bruno explains why they are doing a deck as opposed to a patio on grade the building number would decrease but the impervious coverage would increase. He testifies that what they are proposing is the best of both worlds, where it’s better for a drainage standpoint because the deck has open joints with pervious surface below and it also allows for safer and more convenient usage of outside recreation area or dining space and sitting as the homeowner ages. Mr. Bruno asks if the Board has any questions for him. Mr. Depken states that in his denial letter he listed some of the violations and things that did not apply or over the maximum but the fact that this house was built prior to the code changes he still put them in to what the codes are asking for at this moment. He states that he would kind of eliminate for the amenities 2 and so forth because of the reasons he stated. So, they just need the building coverage, the lot is narrow so he thinks that would be a hardship and the fact that the deck is more pervious than a patio. So, it would certainly help storm water management to have the deck then have the patio. Mr. Bruno adds that in the R1 zone the required lot size is 7,500 sf and the applicant is at 6,000 sf so it’s one of the classic hardships the applicant has an undersized lot. They are already a bit over on building coverage and just under the maximum permitted on impervious coverage. So, he believes they struck a reasonably good balance with the proposal meaning the deck with the open joints and pervious surface below. Mr. Costa states so - what they are asking for is roughly 84 sf if they take the reduction and, in the ordinance, when the Borough changed the ordinance the building coverage didn’t coincide with the lot coverage so they don’t get a reduction for the building coverage only for the lot coverage. Ms. Brown asks if they can repeat what the new lot coverage percentage will be now that they deducted the --- Mr. Bruno responds that would be 36.3% - Ms. Brown – the lot coverage including the amenities. She then states that there is a separate calculation without the yard amenities. Mr. Bruno responds that can be found in Mr. Depken’s letter – Mr. Bruno states the lot coverage is 33.4% without the amenities. They are reducing it because the total is being reduced to 36.3. Mr. Costa wants to clarify as follows – the existing lot coverage with the amenities is 2,093 so if you take the percentage deduction you have to add 84 sf and he thinks that is what Ms. Brown is asking for. Mr. Bruno states that they have 1,502 which is the building coverage and then they take the 84 for the deck and then get the 75% reduction. The area of the proposed deck and stairs is 333 sf. Ms. Brown states the existing lot coverage with the yard amenities is 2,093 if you add the 84 it comes to a total of 2,177 – Mr. Bruno states 2,177 divided by 6,000 he came up with 36.3. Ms. Brown further states that they would also want to continue the lot coverage excluding yard amenities of 33.47% that’s going to remain unchanged. Ms. Brown states that the building coverage request is 30.58%. Mr. Costa states the current total lot coverage is 3,488 and your adding 84 divided by 6,000 is .01 Mr. Costa gets 34.89 so they would not require a variance. Mr. Bruno states for the improved lot coverage to which Mr. Costa responds – correct. Mr. Costa thought he said he needed a variance for 36%. Mr. Bruno states he has the 1,502 for the building, 1,353 for the footprint of the house, 85 sf for the footprint of the shed, 64 sf for the existing front stair and platform and then when they do the improved lot coverage calculation, they have 591 for the driveway. So, if he takes the 1,502 plus the 84 which is 25% of the deck and add the 591 for the driveway that how he came up with 2, 177 divided by 6,000 it comes to 36.28 and he rounded it up to 36.3. He further states that in any event that comes up to a higher number than Mr. Costa is coming up with and for the purpose of the proceedings this evening – he thinks its safer to go with the higher – Mr. Costa states yes you are right. The number now is 36.3. Questions and Comments from the Board Mayor Papaleo states that given the lot size being smaller than normal, given the minimalistic changes to the improved lot coverage he has no concerns. Councilman Glass asks if there are any flooding issues – to which the applicant states – no. The applicant states no and that they have tanks in the back yard and the water run off goes into those tanks. So, no flooding. Councilman Glass asks if there are any leaders/down spouts on the back of the house that will be impacted by the deck location. Mr. Bruno explains that none of the rainwater downspouts will be affected by the location of the deck. Chairman Caslin asks for clarification of the height of the deck, if it was a wood deck and under the deck remaining open just footings. Mr. Bruno states that they do a gravel ground cover. Chairman Caslin asks if the shed is staying to which Mr. Bruno states the shed is staying and that is shown in the calculations. Chairman Caslin asks if there is a fence to which the applicant responded – yes a 6-foot fence. Motion to open to the public – So made – Mayor Papaleo; Second – Councilman Glass, All in Favor. 3 There being no one from the public a Motion to close to the public is made by the Mayor; Second by Mr. Gautier, All in Favor. Ms. Brown states that the only comment or question she has is that the applicant confirm with the Borough engineer that whatever is below the deck surface is acceptable permeable material – to which Mr. Bruno responded – absolutely. Motion to approve the application – So moved – Mr. Gautier; Second – Councilman Glass. Roll Call – Mayor Papaleo – yes; Chairman Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Salva – yes; Mr. Gautier yes; Councilman Glass – yes and Ms. Levine – yes. Motion passes. Motion to adjourn Mr. Gautier; Second – Councilman Glass. Meeting adjourned. 4