River Edge Land Use Board

BOROUGH OF RIVER EDGE LAND USE BOARD MEETING MINUTES ZOOM MEETING September 8, 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. 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/. Roll call: Mayor Papaleo – Here Chairman Caslin - Here Mr. Mehrman – Here James Arakelian - Here Lou Grasso – Excused Ryan Gibbons - Here Michael Krey – Here Eileen Boland – Here Dario Chinigo – Here Gary Esposito – Here Bruce Feffer - Here ALSO PRESENT: Marina Stinley, Esq., Tom Behrens and Robert Costa ·Approval of Minutes – August 25, 2021 – Approved (Ms. Boland and Chairman Chinigo abstained) ·Memorializations - None · ·Completeness Review · · Gloria Juliana – 3 June Court, Bl. 1004, Lot 22 – Existing fence in violation of Borough Code Proofs were submitted, upon Ms. Stinley's review they are sufficient and the Board has jurisdiction to hear the applicant. Mr. Behrens has received and reviewed the documents presented and deems them complete. Motion for completeness – So moved – Mr. Krey; Second – Ms. Boland. Roll call – Mayor Papaleo – yes; Chairman Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman -yes; Mr. Krey- yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes; Mr. Arakelian - yes; Councilman Chinigo – yes; Mr. Gibbons – yes. Motion passes. Nagarajan Subramanian – 927 Magnolia Av., Block 102, Lot 22 – Construct new 12 x 16 deck in rear yard in violation of maximum lot coverage and maximum improved lot coverage. Proofs were submitted, upon Ms. Stinley's review they are sufficient and the Board has jurisdiction to hear the applicant. Mr. Behrens has received and reviewed the documents presented and deems them complete but wants on the record that he needs to obtain the actual survey for the file. Motion for completeness – So moved – Mr. Gibbons; Second – Mr. Krey. Roll call – Mayor Papaleo – yes; Chairman Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman - yes; Mr. Krey- yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes; Mr. Arakelian - yes; Councilman Chinigo – yes; Mr. Gibbons – yes. Motion passes. ·New Businesses Gloria Juliana – 3 June Court, Bl. 1004, Lot 22 – Existing fence in violation of Borough Code Applicant is sworn in as is her son David Juliana. Applicant is seeking approval to keep the six foot fence she has had on her property along with landscaping. The applicant tried to replace and/or repair a previously existing fence, After a survey was done it was determined that part of the fence was off of her property and the applicant agreed to relocate the fence onto the property to comply with the Borough Code. The second issue is the finished side of the fence must be facing out. That also has been corrected for the most part. The main issue now is the height of the fence in the front yard and once it is relocated within the property along the easterly lot line where the fence is proposed at six feet high and then along the southerly lot line which connects the front fence to the corner of the house so the question is does the applicant have to comply with the strict three foot fence height Borough code or is there justification to allow a six foot fence as proposed. Mr. Behrens asks Mr. Juliana if there are any physical hardships impacting the property warranting a six foot fence. Mr. Juliana advises that he doesn't think so and that his main concern is security on the southern corner of the property. There is an existing retaining wall which elevates the property along the Kinderkamack side of the property which is four to six feet above the sidewalk. Mr. Juliana states that on the corner of Wayne and Kinderkamack on that property there is a six foot fence. He also states that between Monroe and Clarendon Court almost every fence along Kinderkamack is six feet tall. Also on Jefferson ad Kinderkamack that corner lot has a six foot fence as well. The applicants main concern is safety for Mrs. Juliana. Mr. Juliana shares pictures with the Board and they are marked Exhibit 1 through 5 and Ms. Stinley requests that the photographs be sent to Mr. Alter for the file. Mr. Caslin opens to the Board for any questions. Mr. Gibbons asks why the portion between Mrs. Juliana and the neighbor is considered front yard. Mr. Behrens advises that for corner lots there are two front yards and the front yard constitutes the line of the house and the imaginary line that would continue to the side lot line, anything between the lot and the street. In this case the space between the house and Kinderkamack Road and that goes from lot line to lot line. So that portion of fence until it reaches the corner of the house is considered the front yard where only three feet is allowed. Mr. Gibbons asks the applicants how tall -2 - - the prior fence was an the applicants respond six feet. Mr. Krey addresses the return between the two properties which is creating the concern for the applicants. He suggests that if the Board agrees to grant the variance on that portion that is coming back between the two properties but reduce whats along Kinderkamack to comply with code, would that be acceptable middle ground for them. The applicant prefers the six feet but they would accept the Boards middle ground. Mr. Feffer asks if there are problems with the back neighbor and the applicant advises that there is a case pending which involved abuse and assault. Mr. Feffer asks the applicants if the height of the fence is basically just because of the problems they are have with the back neighbor as opposed to people on the street or strangers coming onto the property. The applicants respond yes. Mayor Papaleo clarifies with the applicants that there is no home across from the applicant to which they respond – yes. The Mayor states that of the Board were to grant the variance it would not impact any neighbors because there is no resident across from that portion of the applicants property, to which they respond correct. Councilman Chinigo asks Mr. Behrens if six feet fences are pretty common in the Borough. Mr. Behrens responds that certainly between neighbors, less so in the front yard area. Councilman Chinigo inquires that if the Board were to approve this application would the fence impact the sight lines for drivers on June Court. Mr. Behrens does not believe that it would. Councilman Chinigo also asks the applicant of the lights and traffic would bother her if the fence was lowered to three feet and she responded – yes. Mr. Arakelian points out that this came out of an enforcement action and he wanted to know if the enforcement action was facilitated by the new fence installation or by a complaint from another citizen. Mr. Behrens responds that yes it was brought to the Borough's attention by the neighbor the applicant is having trouble with. Mr. Mehrman asks the applicants if currently the front yard along Kinderkamack has a return at the June Court portion back to the house with a gate. Applicants respond – yes. Mr. Mehrman reiterates that there is a fence going from the northeast corner of property which is the corner the driveway on June Court that currently runs towards Kinderkamack along the Kinderkamack right-of-way and then returns to what is called the rear yard property line and that there is an enclosure for safety to which the applicants respond – yes. Mr. Mehrman asks Mr. Behrens if he can tell the Board or read into transcript the requirements for what is considered a front yard fence, the height and so forth. Mr. Behrens responds 3 feet in front yard. Mr. Mehrman suggests that instead of the fence being three feet high along the Kinderkamack section perhaps the Board can go to four feet as a compromise since there is a six foot plus or minus height differential, plus rock retaining walls plus extensive vegetation and he believes that would work and that the Board should consider that. Mr. Costa advises that the Board has passed the six foot fence in the past on the corner house on Wayne and Kinderkamack by the bus stop. Clarendon Court the fence is higher. Mr. Costa advises that he and Mr. Behrens have been out to the property numerous times and whatever is going in court has nothing to do with this application. Motion to open to the public. So made – Gibbons; Second Mr. Mehrman. Neighbor Patrice Harrison, 5 June Court, River Edge. He states that the fence does not affect a line of sight problem and that is the backyard facing Kinderkamack Road he feels that would give the applicant added protection. Beverly Kaylum, 4 June Court she has lived on June Court for 22 years and she advises that the applicants fence has always been six feet tall and it has never obstructed her view. She believes the applicants are just replacing what they already had there and as she walks her dog she sees other property owners with six foot fences and she has no issues with the applicants requests for a six foot fence. Vincent Tagliaferri, 215 Beech Drive South, he has a driving school and passes that block often and he sees no problem with the six foot fence. Barbara Steinman, 315 Olympia Drive she says the fence has been there for the fifty years she has lived in River Edge and feels that the Board should allow her to keep a six foot fence. Motion to close to the public – So made – Mr. Mehrman; Second – Gibbons. Mr. Arakelian makes a motion on this application as follows: Mr. Arakelian makes a motion to approve the application under the conditions that everything will be fixed except that the six foot fence will be approved by the Board. Second – Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Feffer suggests that the Board put in the Motion and minutes that supporting the -3- application the Board is not taking any position regarding the dispute between the neighbors. He would hate to see the Board being brought into a proceeding that does not involve the Board because the Board does not know any of the facts but be used as some sort of evidence that there was a necessity for an increased fence. He believes it would be appropriate to state that the Board is not taking sides in the dispute between the neighbors and the Board is not forming any opinion about the merits of that case they are simply voting on the application on what the Board heard and the evidence presented. Ms. Stinley advises that they can put that language in a Resolution and the Board can decide if they approve in the memorialization. Mr. Mehrman's opinion that the six foot high fence is only required in the southeast corner not along the whole front yard along Kinderkamack. Roll call – Mayor Papaleo – yes; Chairman Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman - no; Mr. Krey- yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes; Mr. Arakelian - yes; Councilman Chinigo – yes; Mr. Gibbons – yes. Motion passes. Nagarajan Subramani – 927 Magnoli Ave., Bl. 102, Lot 4 – Construct new 12 x 16 deck in rear yard in violation of maximum lot coverage and maximum improved lot coverage. Chairman Caslin confirms that the survey the applicant shared on the screen is a reduced version of a survey previously submitted. The applicant wants to install pavers to an area that has been damaged by storms in the past. The reason for the installation of the deck is for the safety of his son. They are not making the deck any larger they are just replacing it exactly as it was. Mr. Behrens explains that the application is merely swap a deck for the existing patio and the applicants have expressed that it would improve the safety and functionality of the area in his back yard. Mr. Behrens asked of the existing shed is remaining on the property, to which the applicant responded, yes. Mr. Behrens asks the applicant if the new deck would have any impact on the neighbors, to which the applicant responded, no. He states that the yard is fenced in and no one will even be able to see the deck. Mr. Behrend inquires as to a stair well being associated with the deck, to which the applicant responds, yes. Mr. Behrens reminds the applicant that in his letter of denial that the stairs were not included in the improved lot coverage calculation so he is unaware if the applicant factored that in. If the applicant did not factor that in he would have to stay with the 41.1% if he did they would be entitled to that larger amount. The applicant advises that they do not have to make the deck 12 x 16 that they can come down to 12 x 15. Mr. Behrens asks the applicant if 12 x 14 with the steps would be acceptable. The applicant responded definitely. Chairman Caslin opens up questions to the Board. Mayor Papaleo confirms that the applicant is willing to go to 12 x 14 which is two feet less getting them to the 40%. Mr. Behrens advises that not necessarily to 40% but to the amount that they have applied for. The existing patio as it exists is 12 x 16 is at 41.1%. The applicants proposal to replace the patio with the deck does not factor in the stairs which is 24 square feet. So if the applicant reduces the deck by 2 feet he will make up the 24 square feet essentially. So the applicant is slightly above the 40% but the deck is slightly smaller than the existing patio. The patio existing is 12 x 16 and the applicant has agreed to a 12 x 14 deck. Councilman Chinigo wants to know that with the reduction is the applicant still in line with the 40% and if not, what does the applicant need to do to stay in line with the 40%. Because the Board has been very strict on the 40% he believes they need to stay within that number. Mr. Behrens advises then the deck would have to be 12 x 11 deck approximately. Mr. Mr. Behrens suggests to the applicant that they remove the shed. If the remove the shed the deck can be 12 x 16 if they keep the shed the deck will be 12 x 11. The applicant agrees to the 12 x 11 and removing the shed. Mr. Krey states that the letter of non-compliance states that maximum lot coverage is currently 26 and the proposed lot coverage is 28%. Mr. Behrens advises that there is two variances being requested. The lot coverage variance is one and the existing condition is approximately 26% and the 192 square foot deck -4- bumps that up to about 28%. Mr. Mehrman asks if the patio was there when the applicant purchased the house. The applicant responded – yes. He agrees as the other Board members that they need to stay at the 40% number. Motion to open to the public. So made – Mr. Krey; Second – Mr. Gibbons. No questions from the public. Motion to close to the public. So Made – Mr. Mehrman; Second – Ms. Boland. Motion on the application from the Board – Mr. Gibbons proposes that Bl. 102, Lot 4 other known as 927 Magnolia Ave., receive the variance relief to install their deck and not go over the 40% coverage on the property for the improved lot coverage. Total lot coverage variance would include the increase of the lot coverage to 28% so allow the the overall coverage to 40% and the lot coverage to 28%. Ms. Stinley requested that the applicant provide an updated survey based on Mr. Behrens recommendation. So the Motion would be pursuant to the applicant supplying that before anything is memorialized. Second – Mr. Mehrman. Roll call – Mayor Papaleo – yes; Chairman Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman - yes; Mr. Krey- yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes; Mr. Arakelian - yes; Councilman Chinigo – yes; Mr. Gibbons – yes. Motion passes. ·Old Business · Paul & Belkis Almanzar – Perkins – 311 Kinderkamack Road, Bl. 1004, Lot 24. Subdivide parcel into 2 building lots. The Mayor and Councilman Chinigo are excused as this application requires a D variance. Mr. Barret – attorney for the applicants. The last time this applicant appeared was June 23, 2021. Since its been a period of time Ms. Stinley provides the Board with an overview of what has taken place thus far. Original completeness – May 26, 2021. The meeting ended because of technical difficulties. The applicants came back for the first round of testimony on June 23, 2021 and then they carried the application on July 14, 2021. At the June 23, 2021 we sworn in the applicant Mr. Perkins, the planner Ms. Gregory and the engineer Mr. McClellan and their testimony this evening will continue to be under oath. Mr. Barret advises that the architects are at the meeting and they have not been sworn in yet. Ms. Stinley swears in the architects - Mr. Tsampicios Peridis and Mr. Dhruva Latorre. Mr. Barret provides an overview to the Board of the testimony that was given on June 23, 2021. Property location is the northwest corner of Howland and Kinderkamack, an over sized lot approximately 17,000 square feet. The proposal is to divide the property into two lots – 10, 000 plus square feet and 7, 098 square feet. The second lot requires a variance as 7,500 square is required. The smaller size is dictated by the location of the dwelling. The existing house is 33.9 feet the ordinance now only permits a height of 30 feet. Therefore, they need a D variance to permit leaving the height as is. Due this being a corner lot with the house being located in the front of the lot there are two front yards. One Kinderkamack and one on Howland. The ordinance dictates that the yard opposite the yard used for the address so that the westerly portion of the proposed new lot would be the rear yard and that requires a variance because that will only be 5.4 feet based on the location of the current home. There is a proposed addition to the southerly side of the home and that would be a 9 foot increase on what currently exists and that will be used as a bedroom for the parent of the applicants. The garage currently on the property on the northwesterly portion of the property is going to be removed as is most of the asphalt leading to the garage. The plans submitted showed the removal of all of the pavers and concrete on the northerly portion of the property behind the existing home. The applicants would like to retain some of the pavers and concrete that is there but it would bring it to lot coverage of 42.7%. The applicants have been working with their architects and engineer to bring this down to 40% coverage on the lot which contains the existing home. Mr. McClellan testified previously that lot coverage is currently 48.5% and the driveway -5- percentage of the lot if 23% making up half of the impervious coverage. There will be a reduction even if the Board were to grant the subdivision of approximately 1,600 square feet of impervious area will be eliminated. The total impervious on both lots will be approximately 7,074 square feet and currently there is 8,654 square feet. The plans show the installation of three 1,000 gallon seepage pits on the site where none exist today thereby greatly improving the drainage. He suggests Ms. Gregory at the end give an overview of everything as to the basis for the C or bulk variances they require as well as the D variance for the increase over the allowable height to accommodate the existing home. Mr. McClellan shares the revised plan to the Board which is marked as Exhibit B1. This is an exhibit created based on the Board's concerns from the last meeting bringing the impervious coverage to 40%. The footprint of the modular house with a covered porch the applicants are planning on is 1,414 square feet which is 19.9% where 25% is allowed. With the typical driveway, sidewalk and air conditioning pads will bring the impervious coverage to 29.7% leaving the applicants 5.3% slightly 300 square feet for a patio. The existing garage is being removed eliminating three non-conformities. Distance to the rear yard, side yard and size of the garage. To the side yard they are at 2.2 where 4 is required, on the side is 3.1 where 4 is required, maximum garage lot area is 450 square feet and this garage is 566 square so the removal of the garage will eliminate the three non-conformities. Its a huge area its 4,081 square feet, no drainage, a large pitch and that will all be eliminated. To see how large the driveway is the entire impervious area of the new lot with what he designed 2,100 so with the 300 square foot patio bringing it to 2,400 square feet. The entire size if the driveway being removed is much larger than the improvements being put on the lot. The architects provide a drawing of the existing dwelling and the proposed new dwelling which have been previously provided to the Board. He explains the drawing to the Board. He then shares a drawing of the proposed interior of the applicants plans as to the new dwelling. He explains to the Board the plans in detail room by room. Ms. Gregory reiterates that she testified to a D6 variance which is a height variance. 30 feet is permitted and 33.9 is proposed but that is an existing condition and that is on the existing home and the applicants are not acerbating any existing condition regarding the height of any proposed structure because it is an existing building. The proposed structure will meet all the height requirements should the Board grant the application. Several C variances were needed. Minimum lot area. Because where the house is on the property there is 2.4 times of the minimum lot area required the applicants will be under on the proposed lot at 7, 098 square feet where 7,500 square feet is required. The applicants are also under on maximum lot width; 75 feet is required where the proposed lot is going to have 65.23 feet. She points out that a tax map had a number of lots that were located in this zone that either had lot areas and lot widths that did not meet the minimum requirement therefore the applicants are are not setting a precedent for the diminished minimum lot width and also the lot area for the proposed subdivision for the one lot. The applicants also needed a front yard setback variance. They had a five foot deviation. The property is a corner lot so it is encumbered by two front yards. Effectively the rear yard really acts like a side yard in this case so they believe it can be granted as it follows suit for the rear yard setback. 25 feet is required but the applicants have 5.4 feet which is at the northern side of the property to the proposed lot. Ms. Gregory submits that the applicants have two yards that act as side yards. The applicants further needed a variance for the improved lot coverage which was discussed at this meeting and they have come to the conclusion that the applicant is asking for a 40% lot coverage where 35% is permitted. The applicants also need a driveway with variance as well. She sites the Kaufman case. She believes the applicants meet the positive criteria, by adding seepage pits, adding a -6- very large driveway which is reducing water flow, eliminating the non-conforming structure in the back, the garage. She also believes the applicants promote purposes C, F and M. C being providing adequate light, air and open space; F – appropriate population densities (by subdividing the lot into two lots where one is slightly larger and the other slightly smaller but the combined lots together are 2.4 the times of the minimum lot area for the zone); M – more efficient use of land (given that there is already existing infrastructure). Ms. Gregory does not believe that there is a substantial detriment to the public good by the granting of the variances requested. She does not believe it will set a precedence. She tells the Board that she has looked at the Master Plan and Re-examination which included goals and objectives which included maintaining the viability of established neighborhoods, prevent the development of incompatible land uses, define a mixture of housing types and enhance and maintain the neighborhood quality of life. She believes the applicants are doing that all in their application even with the proposed subdivision. Witness testimony is concluded. Mr. Behrens asks Mr. McClellan about installing fence along the northerly and westerly lot lines. A solid fence. (This fence would be a condition). Mr. Behrens states that he was under the impression that the home on the smaller lot was not being proposed at this time. He does not believe that the Board has seen any architectural plans for that dwelling. He does not know if the Board would be approving that home per say. Recognizing that it is designed to conform to the lot and would offer about 5% for the rear patio. He asks if the applicant is proposing that dwelling at this time and is the Board expected to vote on that as part of the application. Mr. McClellan responds no stating that of they were to receive approval on the subdivision they would have to come back with a full site plan. He provided the drawings to show the Board the concept of the project but the house will meet the bulk requirement. Mr. Behrens confirms that this is conceptual at this point. He asks Mr. Latorre if the existing height of the dwelling is triggering the variance. He wanted to know if the addition was also part of that factor or is the roof line of the addition lower than the height of the existing house. Mr. Latorre responds that the roof line is lower, they are not requesting additional height for the addition. Mr. Behrens advises that he understands that the proposed patio is to be reduced in size so that the overall configuration is 40% for the larger lot. He further recommended that the patio have a minimum five foot setback from the lot line which would bring it into greater conformity. From Mr. Behrens prospective the Board has to decide whether or not the proposed subdivision is a better planning alternative than a conforming subdivision. Mr. Costa states that the drainage is important and that its on a county road so they will need county approval. He agrees with Mr. Behrens that the garage should be pushed back and do some sort of turn around. He further suggested they think about any amenities they might want to add in the future to this property. Ms. Boland comments that with the new lot she understands some variances would be required because of the existing home but she does not see why the Board would entertain a coverage variance when the applicant is starting from scratch. The Board tries to work with residents and allow the 40% . That's not the new maximum coverage at this point she is not sure why the Board would start at that for this application. Mr. Barret responds that the coverage is for the lot where the home sits. The new lot would only have coverage of less than 30%. Ms. Boland states that the applicant is adding to the existing home, maxing it out at 25% that the applicant is adding and taking advantage of the maximum building coverage so she does not believe that the Board needs to grant a variance for improved lot coverage because the applicant has maxed out the building. Mr. Barret responds -7- that he understands. Mr. Gibbons has a concern regarding the backyard set back. (He is freezing and is audible) He is concerned with the close of the dwellings should the other lot be sold in the future. Mr. Perkins responds that he was trying to accommodate the neighbor to the west. He took the plans to that neighbor to show him and his only request was that the applicant push the house over as far as they could. He states that the applicant will put the house wherever the Board would like it. (Mr. Gibbons continues to freeze and is inaudible). Mr. Perkins further states that the reason for the house staying is that one of their children being special needs they do not know if they will need the house later on. They have no intentions of selling the house. Mr. Krey asks Mr. Behrens if this deviates from prior application the Board has had to subdivide conforming properties to nonconforming properties because he states that there s a specific prohibition against doing that in municipal code. Mr. Behrens responds that the existing lot is 2.4 times the size of the minimum permitted lot size of 7,500 so, ideally in a subdivision context two lot subdivisions you would end up having two conforming lots. The applicants are making a case that this is a better planning alternative because they want to keep the existing home. Mr. Mehrman asks the architects if there were any historical registrations or anything similar for the existing building. To which Mr. Latorre respond he is not aware of any. So Mr. Mehrman indicates that there is no historic reason to maintain the existing structure. For clarification Mr. Mehrman asked if the per-fabricated drawings were just conceptual and not the one intended to be installed. Mr. Latorre responded – that's correct. Mr. Mehrman further asks if the applicant at this point the applicant is going to recommend or suggest that they are going to adjust the existing lot coverage to not go over 40%. Mr. Latorre responds – that is correct. Mr. Mehrman refers to Exhibit C1 which he would like to see a full copy of that exhibit and he would like that to be distributed to the Board before they take any action on the application. He believes it was information that was very pertinent and it was very hard to view on the screen. Mr. Caslin speaks to access points from Howland Avenue and if there were any measurements taken regarding traffic safety for ingress and egress to both lots. The applicants responds that the propose driveway entrance is in the exact same spot as it is now. Going out forward is tricky. That is why they are requesting a variance for driveway width. For proposed lot 2602 will have the same turn about area. Mr Caslin suggests some type of limitation on ingress ans egress here to a sort of one- way movement westerly on Howland if the Board were to look favorably on the application. The applicants agrees turning right onto Howland is much safer. Mr. Mehrman confirms with Mr. Costa that Howland is a borough road and not a county road. Mr. Costa responds that Howland is a local street but the county normally takes jurisdiction 50 feet from the intersection. Mr. Mehrman recommends that on the down hill side where the traffic is coming down Howland towards Kinderkamack that a prohibited left turn be mandated onto both lots. Mr. Mehrman addresses the patio and porch syndrome. He would like to see the proposed lot laid out with a house, a porch, the driveway, the turn around and the garage. Mr. Barret advises Mr. Mehrman that the applicant is proposing improved lot coverage, dwelling, driveway etc. of 29. something percent, leaving 5. something percent for the future, for a deck, patio etc. which would amount to 350 square feet. Mr. Mehrman is concerned that something will be created that somebody will come before the Board asking for relief when the Board could have handled part of it or not all of it prior to the subdivision. He states that he cannot even consider acting on this application without seeing what is going on in the lot above. Motion to open to the public – So made – Mr. Gibbons; Second – Ms. Boland. No one from the pubic is present. Motion to close to the public – So moved – Mr. Gibbons; Second – Ms. Boland. Chairman Caslin believes it would be helpful to the Board to see the plan presented in hand so his recommendation is to allow the Board the opportunity to review that drawing in hand. Mr. Barret responds that he does not have a problem doing that. He does ask Chairman Caslin if when they return before the Board he can just return with the engineer and not with the architects and planner. (Mr. Gibbons speaks but he keeps freezing and is inaudible). Ms. Stinley takes a poll -8- of the Board confirming that just the engineer will need to appear when the applicants return before the Board. A vote of yes means the Board member agrees that just the engineer is needed to be present at the next meeting. Chairman Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman – yes; Mr. Krey – yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Mr. Gibbons - yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes. If the motion passes to carry the engineer only being present is acceptable. Mr. Barret advises the Board they will try to get the plans to the Board by the September 22, 2021 meeting. Motion to carry the application to September 22, 2021. Mr. Mehrman makes a motion that the application be carried to the September 22, 2021 meeting, noting that the applicant agrees to the extension; Second – Mr. Feffer. Roll call – Chairman Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman - yes; Mr. Krey- yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes; Mr. Arakelian - yes; Mr. Gibbons – yes. Motion passes. Mr. Arakelian brings to the Board's attention about an above ground pool being part of impervious coverage or not and whether an above ground pool is a permanent structure as the testimony said it should probably last at least fifteen years or is that in the Borough's code book as a temporary structure. He asks Mr. Costa, Mr. Behrens and/or the Borough attorney to look into it so the Board will be prepared at the next meeting so the Board knows exactly what to consider an above ground pool. He believes a determination should be made so the Board does not go against what the ordinance states. Motion to adjourn meeting – So moved Mr. Mehrman; Second Mr. Esposito. All in favor – Aye – meeting adjourned. -9-