River Edge Land Use Board

0BOROUGH OF RIVER EDGE LAND USE BOARD MEETING MINUTES ZOOM MEETING December 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 – Present Chairman Caslin - Present Mr. Mehrman – Present James Arakelian - Absent Lou Grasso – Excused Ryan Gibbons – Present Michael Krey – Present Eileen Boland – Present Dario Chinigo – Present Gary Esposito – Absent Bruce Feffer – Present ALSO PRESENT: Marina Stinley, Esq., Thomas Behrens Approval of Minutes – Approval 11/10/21 minutes – Motion – Mr. Mehrman (approved as amended) Amendment (The video and the audio from the 11.10. 21 held via ZOOM was not recorded and saved) Second – Mr. Krey – Second. Minutes approved. Memorializations Resolution to withdraw an application – Bretton – 17 Elizabeth Street, Lot, 2 Block 1407 Mr. Mehrman asks Ms. Stinley to explain the without prejudice as it applies to this application and any future one that might come on for a similar type of variance from this applicant. Ms. Stinley explains that the applicant withdraw his application after many postponements and they have a right to do so but this application will be withdrawn without prejudice. The applicant, tenant or any other future property owner can come before the Board and produce a similar application, they would have to go through the steps of paying the application fee, the re-noticing and republishing for the application.  Motion to approve the Resolution - So made – Mr. Gibbons; Second – Mr. Mehrman. All in favor aye, any opposed any abstained. There being none the Resolution passed. Completeness Reviews No completeness reviews on the agenda this evening. New Businesses List of Ordinance points to go over. One is not on the list but has recently been brought to Mr. Behrens attention. What type of animals can be kept on residential properties. In one particular case a gentlemen inquired about keeping chickens on his property. There was question as to whether or not the Borough should take a stance as to the ordinance and as to what type of animals are permitted or prohibited. The zoning ordinances are usually permissive in that only the things they permit are allowed and anything that is not specifically permitted is automatically prohibited. So in reviewing like events we have taken that stance, (example – if chickens are not permitted they are prohibited). Ms. Stinley advises the Board under the Borough's zoning ordinance it specifically states under Section 416-10A any use not specifically designated is specifically prohibited with the exception of accessory and conditional uses. Under that interpretation Ms. Stinley believes the Borough can prohibit the use of any farm type animals/non-domestic animals. Mr. Behrens believes the ordinance is fine the way it is. Mr. Chinigo states that Chapter 122 of the Code speaks about basically dogs and cats. It doesn't talk about anything else. Talks about what you can do with the animals and if you have an animal what you have to do as an animal owner. He advises that the Mayor and counsel are in the process of looking at the Borough's ordinances and that they have hired a firm review everything and make the sure the Borough is up to date and this will be addressed. Old Business - Ms. Stinley advises the Board of the memorialization votes that the Board took at the November 10, 2021 meeting she read the following into the record: A vote was taken at the Board's November 10, 2021 meeting for Gregov, 470 Windsor Road, Block 815, Lot 16. The motion was made to approve the memorialization by Mr. Gibbons and was seconded by Mr. Krey the vote was as follows: Mr. Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman – yes; Mr. Krey - yes; and Mr. Gibbons – yes. The motion passed. −2 - − There a memorialization for an amended Resolution for the Bergen County Historical Society, 1201 to 1209 Main Street, Block 1303, Lot 2 and Block 1304, Lot 2. The motion to approve the memorialization was made by Ms. Boland and seconded by Mr. Arakelian. The vote was as follows: Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman – no; Mr. Krey - yes; Mr. Arakelian yes and Mr. Gibbons – yes. The motion passed. Councilman Chinigo brought up front porches and looking at a process that requires approval from the Board or a higher approval. He recalls subcommittees being formulated but to date it has not been addressed. (It will be addressed in a work session) Motion to adjourn and to move into work session – So moved – Ms. Boland; Second – Councilman Chinigo. All in favor - aye Work Session • Pools – Above ground versus in ground. Should there be different treatment regarding each pool type. Mr. Mehrman reminds the Board that the life expectancy of an above ground pool is at lest 15 years. He feels we should keep them even to avoid getting into the life of a pool trap That is his main concern with the definition. His further concerns concerning pools is from a land use standpoint when you kook at rear yards where the pool may be going and when an applicant puts in the pool and the existing patio and sheds and so forth there is nearly zero green grass left and he feels that, that is poor land use planning. He would like greener volume in rear yards. His second concern is once the Board gets done with the applicants 40% is the number. His question – what is to stop the applicant two, three, four years down the road from putting in pavers around the pool, shed etc that they originally agreed to eliminate or the house changes hands and the new owners installs more impervious coverage. Mr. Mehrman would like to try to control that from not happening which becomes an enforcement issue down the road. Mr. Behrens advises that this is an ongoing issue of people installing things without permits. He believes there are a few ways it can be handled. Most towns do not have someone full time to police the town for ongoing renovations that may be taking place without permits. Most times the town will become aware when a neighbor calls, if an applicant comes in for a permit for a house addition and they may have installed a deck without the proper permits or an inspection is done at the CCO when the property changes hands that the town reviews not only that the building is up to snuff but also that the grounds are also. This way the new owners would have a clean bill of health and the Borough would know that when they got there CCO that this what the property looked like and the applicant would have assurance that what they have on the property is lawful and the Borough an understanding as to when things occurred. Mr. Behrens advises that many towns do this however. Otherwise the Borough just waits for the calls, visual observations or when an applicant comes before the Board are the general ways the Board currently finds out about things. Mr. Mehrman likes the CCO suggestion. Mr. Gibbons believes the purchaser of a property should find these things out beforehand. Mr. Gibbons agrees with the CCO suggestion also. The board members continue the conversation regarding the pool situation in town. The Mayor asks whose responsibility is it to investigate. Much discussion as to how the Borough can police this going forward. Mr. Behrens advises that this would be an administrative process. Anytime it would take to research documents, past records etc, it would be at the cost of the Borough. The survey would be at the cost pf the homeowner along with any attorney fees. Mr. Mehrman suggests that a surveyor, preparing a survey (that the Borough ordinance should  -3- state) that the surveyor in preparing the surveyor calculates and shows on the survey the percentage of improved lot overage. When it comes into the Borough and its over the allowable for a CCO it would automatically flag for a review. Which would mean that you would have to go back and review everything it would have the homeowner do the expense and the work and then it would come to Borough Hall for a CCO which could trigger a review of anything that is over the allowable. Mr. Krey states that the Board is addressing two different issues. One being documenting the condition of the property at the time of sale going forward so that the Borough knows what happened (i.e. is it a clean record) or is the Borough going to go back in time to find out if there is an unapproved variance that occurred. The first is easy to do. The Borough will document what is at the property and know that this is what the new buyer inherited at the time of purchase and going and then there is a baseline going forward should in the future the homeowner has to come before the Board. The second suggestion more difficult searching old documents. The Board would like to have something in place that when a new Buyer purchases a home that they know that they are buying a house that is within code at least on the land use side of it. So buyers should do their due diligence and request via an OPRA request to the Borough, then the Borough will comply by doing the necessary research. Chair Caslin suggests a possible permit process for a pool. Mr. Krey tells the Board that the pools are just one problem but there are other problems, such as adding decks, patios etc. How does the Borough stop unapproved coverage. The discussion and questions keep coming back to enforcement. Mr. Feffer suggested that when an individual and/or family purchases a home in the Borough the Borough provide them with some type of brochure educating them in plain language the procedures and restrictions, i.e congratulations on the purchase of your new home here is a brochure letting you know what the Borough wants you to know about before you do any additional building or renovations. Councilwoman Chinigo asks the Board how do grandfathered laws come into to play regarding the things being discussed. Mr. Behrens explains that if there is an ordinance change after the fact then you are “grandfathered”. Ms. Stinley advises that there is case law that states if there are lawfully existing structures on the property the Board has to consider the existence of those structures when making their decisions. That may limit the homeowner from putting in additional structures. Ms. Boland reminds the Board that as far as the builders building out they are addressing that by making sure the Borough gets the “as builts” before allowing a sale to go through. An “as built” has to prove that they are conforming, Mr. Gibbons believes there should be some check and balance as to when they are approved and when the house actually changes hands because the Board is aware that people will come on and ask for upgrades to the house. Mr. Gibbons would rather go after the builder then an unsuspecting buyer. A lot of discussion regarding the portable (Intex pools). Time frames as o when they can go up and when they should come down. Mr. Behrens addresses the Board with regard to improved lot coverage. He reads the definition of improved lot coverage to the Board. He feels pools should be added to the definition. There is separate part of the definition which exempts pools from accessory buildings and structures. He believes making that clear will alleviate any ambiguity going forward.  Ms. Boland wants to talk about the over all lot coverage. She has looked at other towns with like properties finding 35%. The towns with bigger properties were lower. She lists Oradell 7,500, square foot lot is 25 for building coverage and 40. 40% seems to be very consistent with other towns and they also include pools. New Milford is 20 for building and 40 for lot coverage; Westwood is 22 for building and 40 for lot; Tenafly was 25 for building and 8 for lot coverage; Emerson 30 building and 45 and Paramus is 25 and they go up to 50% lot coverage. She suggested a possible -4- graduation going from the lower lots allowing so much coming down. What's the Board's threshold. Mr. Behrens addresses side yard requirements. The Mayor feels it is important that River Edge maintain their suburban feel. He has a concern about graduated systems of ordinances or permissability because it then tends to make the smaller lot areas more and more urban looking and that bleeds into other areas. Mr. Feffer brought up drainage issues. What are the best products for drainage issues. Setbacks, side yards were discussed. The Mayor scheduled a work meeting for January 18, 2022. Mr. Mehrman brings up that fences on top of retaining walls needs to be addressed at next work session meeting. Mr. Alter confirms that the January 18, 2022 meeting is a work session continuing what was being discussed tonight and that there is nothing else on the agenda. Motion to adjourn from work session. So made - Mr. Gibbons; Second – Ms. Boland; all in favor aye. Motion to open to the public – So made – Mr. Mehrman; Second – Mr. Krey. All in favor – aye. Motion to close to the public – So moved – Mr. Krey ; Second – Mr. Mehrman. All in favor – aye. Motion to adjourn – So made - Mr. Gibbons; Second – Ms. Boland. Meeting sdjourned. −5 - −