River Edge Land Use Board

BOROUGH OF RIVER EDGE LAND USE BOARD MEETING MINUTES ZOOM MEETING June 23, 2021 Zoom - Meeting called order at 7:30 Chairman Caslin made the required announcement concerning the Executive Orders 103 and 104 Open Public Meetings Act and N.J.A.C. 5-39-1.1 to 1.7: Adequate notice of this meeting has been displayed on both the bulletin board at Borough Hall, and published in the Record and Ridgewood News for the people who are interested in this meeting. The meeting is being recorded electronically through ZOOM. No flag salute. Meetings are held electronically via ZOOM. To join the hearing via smart phone, computer or tablet. log in information and a link to the meeting will also be posted on the Borough web site at https://www.riveredgenj.org/. Members of the public may submit written comments in advance of a meeting, which will be read during the public portion of the meeting. Written public comments submitted prior to the meeting must identify the name and address of the commenter 8. No anonymous comments will be accepted. Written comments may be submitted via e-mail with the subject line “Public Comment” to the Municipal Land Use Clerk, Ed Alter at ealter@riveredgenj.org or by mail addressed to: Ed Alter, Municipal Land Use Clerk, Borough of River Edge, 705 Kinderkamack Road, River Edge, NJ 07661. E- mailed comments must be received at least forty eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. Mailed comments must be received by 12:00 p.m. the day before the meeting. If you would like to make a public comment during the meeting, please press the “Raise Hand” button on Zoom or dialing *9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand. The Board will address you by name or by the last 4 digits of your telephone number. The Board will unmute your microphone. You must state your name and address prior to making a public comment. You may also mute and unmute yourself by pressing the microphone icon on Zoom or dialing *6 on your telephone keypad. Members of the public are permitted to submit written comments prior to the meeting via mail or email which will be read during the public comments period. Roll call: Mayor Papaleo – Here Chairman Chris Caslin – Here James Arakelian – Here Vice Chairman, Dick Mehrman - Here Lou Grasso – Here Ryan Gibbons – Here Michael Krey – Here  Eileen Boland – Here Dario Chinigo – Here Gary Esposito – Here Bruce Feffer – Excused ALSO PRESENT: Marina Stinley, Esq., Mr. Behrens and Mr. Costa ·0 Approval of Minutes – No minutes ·1 Memorializations Brent and Chantel Walker, 164 Webb Avenue, Block 4 Lot 15 Mr. Mehrman had changes to the Resolution it stated that the applicants were represented by counsel but they were not. They will make the revision. There was another on page 7. A sentence was left out that should have read “ the sports court when removed shall not be replaced by an impervious surface it has to be returned to a pervious surface.” Ms. Stinley advised that it was included as condition number 8 in the resolution. Motion to accept the Resolution as corrected was made by Mr. Arakelian, second - Mr. Krey. Roll call – Mayor Papaleo – yes; Mr. Caslin – abstained; Ms. Boland – abstained; Mr. Mehrman – yes; Mr. Krey- yes; Mr. Grasso; Mr. Arakelian; Councilman Chinigo; Mr. Gibbons (was absent at that meeting), Mr. Esposito – yes. Motion passes. ·2 Application for the Cherry Blossom Park Urban Parks grant. A grant application to the Green Acres Urban Parks Grant application is being considered for submission. The Mayor and Council are expected to take action on this and the MLUB has been asked to review the matter and the Board planner Mr. Behrens take a look at the proposed plan to review the project and make sure its not inconsistent with the Borough Master Plan. Mr. Behrens advises the Board the grant application is for funds to improve the site relative to the site's grading, drainage and a proposed amphitheater at the rear of the site. In doing these Master Plan consistency reviews the Board is asked to determine whether or not the proposal is not inconsistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Behrens goes over the relevant aspects. The first is that it is recommended that the existing recreation and open space areas be maintained and facilities improved and/or added where necessary. The second is all existing active recreation open space areas be maintained and ·3 Page 2 ·4improved to continue to provide high quality recreation facilities for all municipal residents. Finally there is a goal to provide adequate community facilities and services to meet the needs of the Borough residents. Mr. Behrens believes that there is support in the Master Plan that would indicate that improvement of site drainage especially for surrounding residents who are down hill from the site as well as being a proposed public amenity seems to be consistent with the Master Plan. That will be up to the Board to determine. Again, the question is whether or not a proposed grant is not inconsistent with the Master Plan. ·5 Comments from the Board – Mr. Mehrman brought up the fact that Mr. Behrens memo refers to the 1984 Master Plan and he was curious as to why it doesn't refer to the current update. Mr. Behrens explained that technically the 1984 Master Plan is the prevailing policy plan. Mr. Mehrman would like to Resolution to reference the 2020 Master Plan re-evaluation report which reconfirms the Master Plan goals of the 1984 document, so both documents are consistent and the 2020 re-examination report reiterates those planning goals. Mr. Behrens agrees that the above language can be included in the Resolution. A vote is taken to allow Mr. Behrens to send the letter to the governing body and the Clerk on behalf of the Board. Motion in support of that, so moved - Mayor Papaleo; second – Mr. Gibbons. All in favor – aye, any opposed any abstained – no; Motion passes. ·6 ·7 Bergen County Historical Society carried from the June 9, 2021 meeting. Mr. Barrett advises the Board that the suggestion of the fence being installed around a section of the parking lot at the last meeting has been done and submitted to Mr. Costa. Mr. Costa advises that a split rail fence to match the fence on the north side of the property will be installed and his only suggestion was that some signage be installed directing people to the corner to cross and if those people want to cross out of other driveways and possibly get hurt, he feels the signage and fencing would cover the Borough from a possible liability issue. Ms. Nabbie advises the Board that she is present this evening only for the adoption of the Resolution. She advises that before this evening's meeting the Resolution was amended to reflect the revised plan and the fencing proposed by Mr. Barrett. The modification is located on pages 4 and 15 (page 15, paragraph 18 and page 4 the amended plan has been marked as Exhibit A7). Mr. Mehrman advises the Board that the fencing on the north side of the property is a three rail fence and not two rails as shown on the plan. The plans will be revised to show three rails as opposed to two. Mr. Arakelian asks Mr. Barrett to once again give the Board an over view as to what the building will be used for. Mr. Barrett complies and gives the Board a reminder summary of the project. The Building will be used to house artifacts for the historical society. Motion for the memorialization and it will be the Resolution as amended. Motion – So moved – Mr. Arakelian; Second – Mr. Gibbons. Roll call – Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman – no; Mr. Grasso- yes; Mr. Krey – yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes and Mr. Gibbons – yes. Motion passes. Completeness Review Dave Maschio, 204 Van Suan Drive – Block 1210, Lot 21 – Application for proposed pool and patio. Variances for improved lot coverage, side yard and rear yard setbacks. Page 3 Proofs were submitted and complete so the application is sufficient to be heard by the Board. Motion to approve completeness. So moved – Mr. Gibbons; Second – Ms. Boland. Roll call – Mayor Papaleo – yes; Chairman Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman – yes; Mr. Grasso – yes; Mr. Krey; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Councilman Chinigo – yes; Mr. Gibbons – yes and Mr. Esposito – yes. New Business Dave Maschio, 204 Van Suan Drive – Block 1210, Lot 21 – Application for proposed pool and patio. Variances for improved lot coverage, side yard and rear yard setbacks.  Applicant is sworn in. Applicant gives the Board an overview of the proposed project. He advises that his pool designer Mr. Sean Thompson of Maltese Pools is also present and is sworn in. He will provide fact testimony this evening not expert testimony. Mr. Thompson advises that the house and property was in a non-conforming state before the applicant wanted to install this in ground pool. The property as it currently exists includes the dwelling, the paved driveway, the front walkway to the front door and a rear patio and the proposal is for kidney shaped pool in the rear yard with a patio surrounding it along with the pool equipment. The impact of the proposal are such that improved lot coverage will be increased to 48.9% and the existing is already non- conforming at 39.4% and maximum threshold is 35%. That's one of the variances. The second variance has to do with the pool patio setback which is supposed to be a minimum of 5 feet from side rear lot lines. As proposed it is 1.5 feet from the rear lot line and 1 foot from the side lot line. The pool walls are suppose to be at least 10 feet from any side or rear lot line and they are currently 5 feet from the rear lot line and 5 feet from the side lot line. Those 3 variances are required. The applicant advises Mr. Behrens that the property is exactly as they purchased it and no improvements have been made by him. Mr. Behrens asks if the pool can be placed elsewhere in the yard. Mr. Thompson advises no because no matter where its placed it does not fit within the setbacks anywhere on the property. Mr. Behrens inquires of Mr. Thompson if he feels a 5 foot setback is adequate for protection or disturbance to neighbors. He advises that there is nothing immediately adjacent to that area of the property and that there is already a 6 foot fence around the property so he feels that there would be minimal impact to neighbors. Mr. Behrens asks if they have considered any reduction to the impervious surface the patio etc., to bring the property into greater conformity. Mr. Behrens addresses the two tests of the C variances – the first hardship impacting the property. There has been testimony as to the shape of the property and the existing house location does pose some disadvantage to the location/setbacks of the pool. Then there is the approved lot coverage. Statutory criteria – public benefits test. Discussion is turned over to the Board. Ms. Boland asks the applicant about the existing non- conformities. She wanted to know if there was a record showing that these were approved variances and how did it get to the point of where its non-conforming even before they got started. The Page 4 applicant claims he bought it “as is”. Ms. Boland would like the applicant to minimize as much as possible the coverage increase from the pool. Mr. Krey – Also relays the Board's feelings on going over the 39% lot coverage. He asks Mr. Thompson of there is any other ways that would allow some reduction in the impervious coverage. Mr. Thompson suggests taking a foot off around the pool reducing it 100 feet. They can possibly take out some of the existing patio but not all of it. Councilman Chinigo inquired as to the housing for the pool filter and heater so the noise will not bother the neighbors. He wants the housing for the filter and heater be considered by the Board. He too is opposed to the large percentage of lot coverage. Mayor Papaleo – wants Mr. Behrens and Mr. Alter to look into how a new construction ended up being 39.4% when you purchased it. It should not have without variance approval. Going above 40 is something the Board does not do. 48.9% is not something he can vote for. Mr. Gibbons confers with the other Board members. Mr. Arakelian – He inquired of Ms. Stinley that if the applicant is not accepted as written could the Board grant a variance based on what it currently is and include that verbiage in the announcement that any other variances wherein the Board can grant the variance so the applicant does not have to come back for the additional 4. whatever that the applicant is over right now. Mr. Arakelian attempts to explain to the applicant that was built and at the time he received his CO it should not have been above the 35% coverage that is allowable by the Borough code. Somehow it got to 39% without the Borough knowing about it. Now that its before the Board it would be irresponsible for the Board not to address the extra 4. whatever percent the applicant is over. He suggest amending the application to include that and this evening the applicant could get relief from that thereby avoiding a visit from the zoning officer. Mr. Costa suggests the Borough run the calculations to make sure they are correct. There is discussion about the builder and possible fraud that needs to be addressed. Mr. Costa will pull the file on this property and check to see who did the as built, see what the calculations were on the as built and see who the builder was. Mr. Costa suggested we carry this application to the next meeting. Motion was made for a brief recess (time is 8:34 p.m.) return 8:45 – So moved – Mr. Arakelian; Second – Mr. Gibbbons. Meeting is called back to order. Roll Call – Mayor Papaleo - here; Chairman Caslin – here; Ms. Boland – here; Mr. Mehrman – here; Mr. Grasso – here; Mr. Krey – here; Mr. Arakelian – here; Councilman Chinigo; Mr. Gibbons – here; Mr. Esposito – here. Ms. Stinley advised that Board that she spoke with Ms. Nabbie regarding whether or not the Board could or should subpoena the builder in this matter and its their recommendation that there is no real reason to subpoena the builder. The applicant is the owner of the property and unfortunately this builder built out and above the requirements without seeking a variance. Mr. Costa interceded and advised Ms. Stinley that during the recess he went through the file and shows the survey that was done on May 3, 2012 and that is what is referenced in the plan that was submitted. The plan dated May 3, 2012 there is no patio. The plan that is before the Board shows the patio. The applicant states that there was a patio when he bought the home. The plan submitted for the pool references the May 3, 2012 survey but also shows a patio. Ms. Stinley advises that the property exists at 39.4% existing improved lot coverage. The Board has to review this application based upon the conditions that are existing right now and must make a determination of whether the applicant can work with the Planner or the Borough Engineer to mitigate the coverage that is existing or to mitigate any additional coverage. Mr. Costa again reiterates the fact Page 5 that no one knows if the 39% is right or wrong. He recommended to the Board to stop hearing the application at this point, come back in two weeks, check the file, call the engineer who prepared the plan, get the facts and present them back to the Board. Mr. Arakelian asks the applicant that when he bought the house did he ask the builder to put in a patio that might have been added before he bought it but at a request as a home buyer and the builder put it in to consummate the deal. The applicant advises Mr. Arakelian that he felt he is going to consult with an attorney at this point. Mr. Arakelian states - “then we have our answer Board” and he believes the Board should go with Mr. Costa's recommendation at this point. Mr. Mehrman concurred with the previous comments made by the Board members. He believes its an extreme site over development especially for the maximum improved lot coverage and is unacceptable to him and therefore he cannot vote for it. He suggests that the Board vote on the applicantion as it is now and then let the 39.4% come in as a separate item if the applicant wants to legalize it. Chairman Caslin advises the applicant of a few options available. The first, take action on the application as it currently stands or the Board can vote to carry it to the next meeting giving him an opportunity to look at the application and make certain revisions to it. The applicant would not have to re- notice the hearing. Mr. Caslin then asks the applicant how he would like to proceed and the applicant requests a few minutes to consult with his pool designer. The applicant advises the court that he is withdrawing his application for the pool. Mr. Arakelian explains different options to the applicant mostly regrading the 39.4%. Get past that and then he can walk away and he has what he has and it would possibly be approved. Ms. Stinley advised that the applicant can do what Mr. Arakelian suggested and he can also withdraw but in that case he would have pay the application fee again and re-notice for a new application. The applicant chooses to go for the 39.4% . So the applicant will not withdraw his applicant he is requesting variance relief with the current conditions as they stand without the pool. Mr. Arakelian's opinion is for the Board to move forward and approve what the applicant has but he feels the rest of the Boards needs to express their opinion also. Mr. Caslin opens questions up to the Board. General consensus of all Board members is the fact that the builders are going over the percentages allowed and homeowners are suffering the consequences. There is a subcommittee in place looking into this and a possible ordinance change may be needed. They also for the most part agree to allow the 39.4%. Mr. Mehrman suggest amending the application to request the 39.4% improved lot coverage. Further, that Mr. Costa should review the 39.4% for a drainage aspect to see if anything additional is required between a 35 and a 39.4. Motion is made to open to the public. A Mr. Ken Zuidervliet, 211 Lozier Terrace is in the public He is the applicants backyard neighbor. He advises the Board that from the beginning of the build on this property the builder was never checked. They started whenever they wanted and no one ever came to check on them. He felt badly that the Board was putting the applicant through the “ringer” for what he sees as a lack of the Borough's fault in backing him up. He's already lost the application for the pool but the Borough is holding him responsible for the Borough's failure. He admonishes the Borough for not staying on top of the builders. Motion to close to the public. Motion for the relief sought for the existing 39.4% coverage on the current conditions. Ms. Stinley reiterates to the applicant that he understands that this motion is strictly for 39.4% improved lot coverage and not the pool or associated variance for the pool and that if the applicant would like to Page 6 come back before the Board for a smaller pool or any other improvements above the 39.4% he would have to submit a new application. The applicant advises Ms. Stinley that he understands. Motion to approve the existing conditions of 39.4% coverage. Mr. Arakelian makes an application that the amended application for 39.4% what is existing on the property as far as the patio, the driveway and the house itself and the coverage be approved as amended. Second – Mr. Esposito. Mr. Gibbons brings up setback issue on the left and right as well. The applicant has 7.7 and 5 which doesn't equal 18 so does this cover that as well. Ms. Stinley explains that the Board can approve the 39.4% explicitly with the existing coverage he did notice for the coverage variance and then the conditions as presented on the drawings provided by the applicant which include the side yard. Mr. Arakelian amends the motion to include that as well. Mr. Esposito seconds the amended motion. Roll Call – Mayor Papaleo – yes; Chairman Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman – yes; Mr. Grasso – Mr. Krey - yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Councilman Chinigo – yes; Mr. Gibbons - yes; Mr. Esposito – yes. Motion passes. Mayor Papaleo and Councilman Chinigo excuse themselves for the next application. Paul and Belkis Alamazar- Perkins, 311 Kinderkmack Road,Block 1004, Lot 26; Subdivision. This was carried from May 26, 2021 meeting at which time it was also deemed complete. Mr. Barrett attorney for applicant addresses the Board. The applicants are looking to subdivide the property into two lots. It is an over sized lot approximately 17,000 feet. The proposal is to subdivide into two lots. (1) – 10,000 plus square feet; (2) almost 7.100 square feet. The requirement is 7,500 square feet so the applicant needs a variance for the westerly lot. The current home is 39.9 feet in height. The ordinance now only permits 30 feet in height. As a result a D variance is necessary to allow the current height to continue. There would also be a rear yard variance of 5.4 feet (the westerly portion of the lot containing the current home. The applicants are sworn in as is Katherine Gregory, (expert testimony as a Planner). Sean McClellan (expert testimony as an Engineer). Applicant gives the Board an overview of what they are seeking to do with the property. The proposed addition to the southerly side of the home is to come 9 feet off of the currently existing, what was used as an office they want to put a room for their mother-in-law who currently resides with them and they need garage allowing them some additional space to put in a bathroom. The garage that is currently at the back of the driveway property will be taken down to comply with setback and other requirements, so that whole building will be taken down. At the last meeting the applicant directed the engineer to find a way to reduce the improved lot coverage to less than 35% by removing a substantial amount of the pavers in the northwest corner of the property as well as the concrete located to the north of the easterly portion of the home. If the pavers were allowed to remain it would increase the coverage to 39.2% which would require a variance. The applicants would like to keep the concrete and pavers and left as is, would make it 42.7% which would be the only back yard the applicants would have. Page 7 Mr. McClellan goes over the plan with the Board. The property is a corner lot located in the R1 residential zone. The lot is more than double the required size 17,851 square feet where 7,500 is required. The lot width is also doubled then what is required at 158.73 where 75 feet is required. The lot coverage as it stands now is 48.5% where only 35% is allowed. The existing building height is 33.9 feet where only 30 feet is permitted. The driveway as a percentage of the lot is 23% and makes up half of the total impervious coverage of the lot and the garage is 566 square feet. Removing the garage will remove three non-conformities from the property. Mr. Barrett goes over Mr. Costa's letter to the applicant's expert. They will adjust the plans to incorporate the Borough's details. The applicant will comply with the 20 feet on the driveway. If the applicants were to keep all of the pavers the impervious coverage would 39.2%. If they were to keep all of the pavers and the concrete patio the impervious coverage would be 42.7%. So the total impervious on both lots would be 7,074 square feet and they are currently at 8,654 so they are still reducing the overall impervious area on the site about 1,600 square feet. They will install three 1,000 gallon pits on site. Currently there is no retention, there is 8,600 square feet of impervious coverage and the proposed conditions will have 1,600 less square feet of impervious coverage and three 1,000 gallon seepage pits on the site. The overall drainage condition on the site will be greatly improved. Mr. Behrens wanted to confirm that there will be no dwelling proposed currently on Lot 26.02. Mr. Behrens asked the engineer that if the application were approved would they could set aside a certain percentage of that lot for a rear patio or deck. He also asks the engineer to confirm that Lot 26.01 complies with RSIS in terms of the parking requirement. He requests that they comply with the RSIS requirements. Mr. Behrens asks if the applicant would be amenable to installing a solid fence at least along the northerly lot line. The engineer believes they would be amenable to that. Ms. Gregory (Planner) testifies that the property is located in a R1 zone. She shows the Board two pictures (A1 and A2) of the property in question. She advises that they are in front of the Board because they need a D6 variance (height variance) and a couple of C or bulk variances. She gives a history as to height variances and the C variances. She reiterates and goes over prior figures given regarding this application. She introduces Exhibit A3 which is the tax map with pink and blue highlights on it. The pink lots were deficient in lot width and the blue are deficient in lot area. She did an analysis on the 200 list (Exhibit A4) wherein she wanted to see what the median home size of the properties located in the direct proximity of this property. She found that the median was 2,325 and the manufactured home that the applicant has picked out for that lot is 2,197 square feet. She discusses the two corner lots. The rear yard set back, the driveway width and the improved lot coverage. She referenced one case, Kaufman vs. Warren Twp. Planning Board, wherein they found that the applicants lot was much larger then the zoning requirement for the zone but they applied for subdivisions to non-conforming lots which were closer in size to the zone requirement but needed variances specifically in this case for setback requirements. They found that it was a better plan for the property. She believes that case guides the application which is now before the Board. She addresses positive criteria. She discusses negative criteria. She believes that this proposal is going to maintain the viability of the established neighborhood and maintain the quality of life in this neighborhood by improving the existing home and providing a new home while eliminating some non-conforming structures on the property. She believes the applicants meet all positive and negative criteria for the granting of the variances. Mr. Page 8 Behrens goes through the experts testimony with the Board. He comments regarding the 2020 re- evaluation report of the Master Plan which he reads verbatim from his report. Mr. Behrens final comments to the Board are whether or not the subdivision and proposed development functions well, if there are any impacts to surrounding development and if the site can accommodate whats being proposed. Motion to open to the public – So moved – Mr. Gibbons; second Mr. Mehrman. N o comments from the public. Motion to close to the public – So moved – Mr. Mehrman; second – Mr. Gibbons. Motion to carry to next meeting 7/14/21. So moved – Mr. Krey; second – Mr. Grasso.  Motion to adjourn meeting. So moved – Gibbons; Second Mr. Grasso. Page 9