River Edge Land Use Board

BOROUGH OF RIVER EDGE LAND USE BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 27, 2022 Meeting called order at 7:30 – Pledge of Allegiance Ms. Stinley 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. a link to the meeting will also be posted on the Borough web site at https://www.riveredgenj.org/. Roll call: Mayor Papaleo – Excused Chairman Caslin – Present Mr. Mehrman – Present James Arakelian - Present Ryan Gibbons – Excused Eileen Boland – Present Michael Krey – Present Gary Esposito – Present Dario Chinigo – Absent Colin Busteed - Present Bruce Feffer – Absent Mr. Esposito and Mr. Busteed are seated to vote this evening ALSO PRESENT: Marina Stinley, Esq., Mr. Behrens and Mr. Costa. Approval of 5/13/22 Minutes – Not available MEMORIALIZATIONS: Tower Management 680 Kinderkamack Rd. Block 616, Lot 20 1 Application seeking approval for the installation of an emergency generator. Setback variances required. Mr. Mehrman states that the Resolution mentioned that the Fire Department would issue its comments. The Board has received from the Fire Department those comments and they have reviewed same. The Fire Department had no issues with the location. Motion to approve – So Made – Mr. Arakelian; Second – Mr. Mehrman. Roll Call – Mr. Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman – yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes; Mr. Busteed. Motion passes. COMPLETENESS REVIEW: Jin Long 117 Manning Avenue Block 803, Lot 7 The installation of a 6-foot fence on a corner lot with a front yard and applicable variances being sought. Mr. Behrens has reviewed the proposed plans and the Board has enough information to review the information and deed this application complete. Ms. Stinley has reviewed the proofs submitted by the applicant and find them sufficient for the Board to have jurisdiction to hear this application. Motion to deem complete – So Made – Mr. Esposito; Second – Mr. Arakelian. Roll Call – Mr. Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman – yes; Mr. Krey – yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes; Mr. Busteed. Motion passes. Old Business 915 Kinderkamack LLC a/k/a Dunkin Donuts – Block 206 Lot 4 -Seeking approvals for a new Dunkin Donuts with a drive thru. This application will be moved to a special meeting on Wednesday August 31st at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers. ILBJ, LLC 335 Johnson Avenue Block 1405, Lot 3 Request for an extension of previously granted approvals a third one-year extension to construct an office building on the subject property. 2 This application was required to be noticed pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-12A and applicant has submitted acceptable proofs for the Board to hear this application. Having been sworn in appearing for the applicant is John Velteri, Esq., University Plaza, Hackensack, New Jersey. Mr. Ianuzzi, Managing Partner of ILBJ, LLC is also present. The current approvals are expiring on August 11, 2022 and they are looking for another one-year extension. Mr. Ianuzzi is sworn in. Stephen Ianuzzi, 16681 Southwest (something court, inaudible) Florida. The Board asks for an overview as to what has been done since the last meeting. Mr. Ianuzzi states that initially they thought the pandemic was in their rearview mirror but then the first variant hit and set them back considerably and beyond the second variant set them back even further. He explains that during this two-years, family businesses took a real pounding. The financial hammering has taken a toll on this project. To date, they have invested just about $2 million dollars. It’s been a considerable investment, not only on acquisition costs but, soft costs, development costs and so on. They are committed and would very much like to move forward with this project. He corresponded with the Board’s attorney stating circumstances leading up to their request this evening. The three biggest issues are very straight forward and clear, and they are, re-cost on materials and supply issues on sourcing materials and vendors, having to redo their entire financing package presenting all kinds of hurdles, such as earlier commitments which are now under review again. Lastly, their expert managers trying to put them back in place and getting them focused and moving the plan forward. They do not foresee another extension being necessary should the Board grant the extension. The applicant does not see anything that would interfere right now looking forward. Mr. Mehrman questions the fact that applicant can be in the same position again given the current financial atmosphere. The applicant explains that initially the project was being financed with family resources but having issues with their business being operational due to the pandemic they had to look into the market for potential financing. Mr. Mehrman tells the applicant that the last time the applicant was before the Board, and he voted to grant the extension he advised the applicant at that time that he did not want to see him back before the Board in a year. He stands on that and he does not want to see the applicant back as it is not fair to the town as they are tying up a valuable piece of land for many, many years and he does not see the applicant moving forward. Mr. Caslin tells the applicant that if the Board were to approve this application would they be willing to accept as a condition that the lot be cleaned up because it is a tremendous eyesore. The applicant states yes. He further states that it is in the works and that they will most likely have it cleaned up by Friday (July 29th). Mr. Behrens asked the Chairman if there would be any specifics to that request. Mr. Behrens requests a time frame so then the town can issue violations should it not be completed. Mr. Krey asked if the taxes were up to date. The applicant responds that the taxes are current and paid in full. Motion to open to the public. So Moved – Arakelian; Second – Mr. Krey. No comments from the public. Motion to close to the public - So Moved – Mr. Arakelian, Second – Mr. Mehrman. Motion on the application. Mr. Arakelian addresses the Board stating that based on what they heard and the property falling into disrepair and thy have received insurance that it will be fixed, Mr. Arakelian is somewhat conflicted in allowing a one year extension without knowing that the cleanup has been done he counter proposes that the extend a 60 day extension based on a report back from Mr. Behrens that the work has been completed and at that time extending it an additional ten months. Counsel states that the applicant would agree in the Resolution as a condition placed upon the applicant to include that, that they have fifteen days from the date hereof in order to clean up the lot to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planner as a condition. So, their extension would be conditioned upon that. Ms. Stinley states that if the Board 3 goes with the fifteen-day cleanup as a condition of the approval (the extension) and if the applicant does not meet that 15-day requirement, and Mr. Behrens reports back, the Board’s next meeting is fourteen days away and the Board might have an update by then, then the one-year approval is void. The applicant agrees. Mr. Arakelian states that based on the comments just made and agreement made with the applicant Mr. Arakelian suggests the Board move forward that the application be carried for another year. Second - Mr. Esposito. Roll call - Mr. Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman – abstained; Mr. Krey – yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes; Mr. Busteed - abstained. Motion passes. New Business Jin Long 117 Manning Avenue Block 803, Lot 7 The installation of a 6-foot fence on a corner lot with a front yard and applicable variances being sought. Mr. Long is sworn in. Jin Long,117 Manning Avenue. He states the original fence on the property is four feet and his wife hates it, because everyone/traffic can see into their property. They wish to get a six-foot solid white vinyl fence for privacy. He marks several photographs that he brought with him. These are pictures of his front yard standing on the corner Kinderkamack Road and Manning looking at the front of the applicant’s home. He is not putting the fence in his front yard. No fencing on the Manning Avenue side. He goes through the photos explaining to the Board what they depict. He wants to install a six-foot fence to replace the existing fence. Marked area on the survey shows the existing fence. This is where he wants to put his six-foot fence. He states that there are vinyl white fences on many properties along Kinderkamack Road. He shows the Board photographs of the properties he is speaking about. He shows 588 Claredon, 568, 584, 582 they all have six-foot white vinyl fences. Also 576, 565, 588, 565 are corner lots, similar like Manning. There are additional photographs showing number 8 Manning, right across the other side of Manning and they have six-foot vinyl fence. 110 Voorhees Avenue corner lot, 115 Vorhees corner lot and he states he wants to do the same the same thing in his back yard as the other properties. Mr. Behrens feels that this is a policy question that needs to be discussed with other ordinance amendments that are being contemplated. One being, whether or not the current three-foot height requirement for fences in the front yard on a corner lot is too low perhaps. He knows the Board has approved up to four feet in front yard situations that are open style. Mr. Behrens question to the Board is whether there are any unique attributes worth considering. One being, (A) its along Kinderkamack Road, (B) that its across from the gas station. Mr. Behrens states that if you go up and down Kinderkamack Road there are probably 20 to 30 properties with this condition. Mr. Behrens is aware that there is a number of six-foot-high fences along the (inaudible) and Court properties. He believes they are somewhat different as they are (inaudible) lots in that truly their 4 functional rear yards that abut Kinderkamack Road and its kind of a straight line. Is there an element of a hardship? Mr. Behrens thinks perhaps. The question is what’s the better alternative here. A four-foot-high fence with planting since Mr. Long would like privacy or does the Board grant the six-foot high fence. One other alternative could be bringing the fence in the front yard a little bit further in and possibly plant in front of it. Mr. Behrens asks Mr. Long (showing him the plan) stating that functionally this area he uses as the back yard, but anything between the house and the street on both sides is considered front yard, so that whole area technically is front yard. Mr. Behrens is explaining different alternatives to Mr. Long and the Board. Questions opened to the Board – Ms. Boland states that she knows there are other fences along Kinderkamack he doesn’t think they look nice she would prefer if the fence could be moved in and have some landscaping. Mr. Esposito also prefers the 4 feet with landscaping. Mr. Krey clarifies what then applicant has said and asks what the hardship is compared to any other neighbor. He asks if 6 foot is allowable. Ms. Stinley advises that a 6-foot fence is permitted in the rear yard. The applicant is not changing anything on Manning Avenue. The Board asks where exactly where the fencing is going. The applicant is substituting what fencing is there now. Mr. Krey states that the fence that starts against the house and runs out to Kinderkamack cannot be a 6 foot fence because that is on the front yard. Going along Kinderkamack that cannot be a six-foot fence. Coming back between the property line between the two properties (Mr. Behrens shows Mr. Krey the area in question). Mr. Mehrman asks that the Board put in the record the marked copy just marked by Mr. Behrens (it was marked Exhibit 5). Mr. Arakelian asks if there are any line-of-sight issues. Mr. Behrens responds -it is placed far back from the corner, and he states the difference from this is it’s a corner lot and it doesn’t come to the intersection. It’s quite a distance from the intersection (he is guessing) maybe at least 50 feet from the intersection, so there is no issue with site distance and turning onto Manning or Kinderkamack. Mr. Mehrman goes back to the pictures that the applicant submitted. He goes through the pictures and states to the applicant that are the rear yard of (inaudible) Court as it backs onto Kinderkamack, there are six-foot-high vinyl fences. Mr. Mehrman addresses the pictures the applicant has taken – the addresses the fact that the six-foot vinyl fences he is showing are in rear yards. Mr. Behrens states that technically they constitute a front yard because they are directly on Kinderkamack Road. They function as a rear yard it’s a thru lot with two frontages. Its not an ideal situation but it was created decades ago so it is what it is. Mr. Mehrman addresses the applicant has shown continuity of the six-foot fences along Kinderkamack Road, but Mr. Mehrman believes it to be an eyesore. Mr. Mehrman addresses Mr. Costa’s report where it indicates that a corner lot can have a low fence with very high landscaping or screening behind. He believes the applicant’s concern is also screening so he feels the applicant can do the same. The applicant states that the property line his back yard there is a lot of trees, and no sunshine comes through, so he tried to plant trees, but they are not growing well. That is why he wants the fence for backyard privacy. Mr. Mehrman tells the applicant to try some creative landscaping. Mr. Mehrman tells the applicant that he will not support a six-foot vinyl fence right down the middle of Kinderkamack. Mr. Caslin agrees with Mr. Mehrman. Ms. Stinley asks Mr. Costa if the rear of his photo number 2 with that six-foot fence in the back, would that have been considered a front yard the front yard? Mr. Costa advises the applicant that in the spirit of cooperation that the applicant go with a four-foot fence at least there will be some protection and then do some plantings. This is Mr. Costa’s recommendation to the Board. Mr. Arakelian asks the applicant if he is willing to change his application accordingly or does he want to go ahead with the six-foot fence and take his chances with the Board. The applicant responds that he really wants to keep the six-foot fence. He continues telling Board that there are many six-foot fences along Kinderkamack. He states that he knows case by case might be different, but he feels the corner lots should be treated the same way. If all of the corner lots on Voorhees and Manning 5 and also on the corner of Kinderkamack and Monroe Street are all six-foot fences. This is what he wants to install and appreciates all the comments the members of the Board made but he wants to stick with his six-foot fence. He will take his chances. Mr. Arakelian makes a motion on acclimation, so he makes the Motion to approved the six-foot fence; Second - Mr. Krey. Roll Call; Mr. Caslin – No; Ms. Boland – No (she explains that they did not approve those other six-foot fences as a Board and so going forward this is how this Board feels, so she wanted you to have an explanation as to why the other people have the six-foot fences); Mr. Mehrman – No; Mr. Krey – No; Mr. Arakelian – No; Mr. Esposito – No; Mr. Busteed- No. The Motion did not pass. The applicant must now reapply for a four-foot fence should he decide to do that. Paul I. Perkins & Belkis Almanzar-Perkins 311 Kinderkamack Road Block 1004, Lot 26 Subdivide parcel into two new building lots – Prior approval on 3/23/22 conditioned on site plan approval for the new house on the second lot. Mr. Barrett begins on behalf of the applicant reminding the Board that as a condition of approval the applicant (cannot hear him at all). Ms. Stinley advises that Mr. Barrett re-noticed for this meeting and the proofs submitted where acceptable for the Board to hear the application. Sean McClellan, 101 West Street, Hillsdale (Engineer) is sworn in. Sanitary sewer line will be arranged prior to the construction (he is very hard to hear). Mr. McClellan states – yes it will be videotaped and video submitted. They will provide the plans showing the proposed utility connections. They will submit them to Mr. Costa for his approval along with the trenching details. Since proposed lot 26.2 sits higher, there’s a retaining wall and they will add a drain to make sure they are not putting excess water onto lot 26.01. Drainage calculations are on the upper lot 26.02 they provided a 1,000 gallon seepage pit to collect al of the storm for the entire dwelling, for Lot 26.01 they provided a 500 gallon seepage pit to collect all of the storm water run-off from the proposed additions. They are providing excess of what is required. Total height of the retaining wall which included the embedded will not exceed four feet. Mr. Barrett wants him to clarify the embedded part. Mr. McClellan states that the face of retaining will be four feet, the embedded part will exceed four feet. Structural calculations will be provided. A certification will be provided that it has been constructed in accordance with the Code. They have the revised drop curb detail, and they will provide a curb detail. They would like to continue using the existing daylight drain. There is a paver detail on the plan which is under the proposed deck on Lot 26.02. An application has been filed with the Bergen County planning Board, they have received feedback, they requested they make a few notes on their plan and they have done that, resubmitted and are awaiting to hear back. Any concerns Mr. Costa might have will be addressed. Mr. Behrens had a question regarding the proposed retaining wall for Lot 26.02. He wanted to know if that wall was represented on the last set of plans. Mr. McClellan that the subdivision plan was just a footprint of the house. Mr. Behrens addresses the ordinance which refers retaining walls to comply with the fence section of the ordinance so its really not explicit and there is a situation where it allows three-foot-high fences in the front yard. It’s been interpreted to also mean retaining walls. Mr. McClellan states that he will regrade the one section of the wall to make sure that in the front yard everything is three feet or less. Mr. Costa states that when they go to build this 6 and pull a permit, at that point they will get a soil moving permit and they further review the drainage at that point. Questions open to the Board. Mr. Mehrman asks if site plan approval is for both lots. He then asks Mr. Costa if he has any concerns about traffic into and out of either driveway. Mr. Costa states that county will take jurisdiction over the first driveway. They have a turnaround but in reality, they will most likely back into Howland. He does not think there will be a problem. Mr. Mehrman foresees some traffic issues in the future. Mr. Caslin wanted confirmations as to the run-off on Lot 26.02 – is that going into the seepage pit? Mr. McClellan responds that the entire roof leaders will go into the seepage pit. Additionally, they are going to add a drain in the rear where they have a swale and some of that water will be coming onto Lot 26.01so they are going to put a drain there and tie that in with the seepage pit as well. Motion on the application – So made – Ms. Boland; Second – Mr. Esposito. - (subject to the retaining wall being four feet and the drainage being monitored by Mr. Costa). Ms. Stinley called the roll only for eligible members; Roll call – Mr. Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes. Motion passes. Motion to adjourn – So Moved – Mr. Arakelian; Second – Mr. Mehrman Meeting adjourned 7