River Edge Land Use Board

BOROUGH OF RIVER EDGE LAND USE BOARD MEETING MINUTES September 14, 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 – Present Chairman Caslin – Present Mr. Mehrman – Present James Arakelian - Present Ryan Gibbons – Absent/Excused Eileen Boland – Present Michael Krey – Present Gary Esposito – Present Dario Chinigo – Absent/Excused Colin Busteed - Present Bruce Feffer – Present ALSO PRESENT: Marina Stinley, Esq., Thomas Behrens, Planner, Jason Flores, Costa Engineering Approval of 8/31/22 – Minutes were not available. Completeness Review Craig Arkenan 309 Taft Road Block, 1107, Lot 9 1  Proposed pergola over Backyard patio – will increase lot coverage to a non-conforming 27.9%. Variance relief required. Mr. Arkenan gives the Board an overview of what he plans on for the louvered pergola and why is installing same. He wants to install the pergola half attached to the house to improve the area that actually is graded and flat so his family/children have more space to enter the backyard and improve the space. Potential variances (1) for lot or building coverage for the pergola; (2) for paving if needed – its noted that the paving is existing in terms of the application materials. Ms. Stinley and Mr. Behrens have reviewed the proofs submitted and they are sufficient and the Board has jurisdiction to hear this application. A motion to accept the application – So moved – Mr. Feffer; Second – (2) Roll call – Mr. Mayor – yes; Mr. Caslin – yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman – yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Krey -yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes; Mr. Busteed – yes. Motion passes. NEW BUSINESS Craig Arkenan 309 Taft Road Block, 1107, Lot 9 Proposed pergola over Backyard patio – will increase lot coverage to a non-conforming 27.9%. Variance relief required. The applicant is sworn in. The applicant explains that the material for the pergola is extruded aluminum it’s a little heavier duty product. There will be installed to hold up the pergola they will be installed into a concrete structure underneath to make sure the pergola doesn’t move. The one side will be attached to the house There is border going around the existing patio. The reason for the border is that the pergola is 12 feet wide. Materials to be used is a Cambridge 8 inch retaining stone which will go on grade with an 8-inch Cambridge cap on top and that will provide the border except where the columns will be the border would go around them making it look aesthetically nice. Mr. Behrens refers to sheet 1 of the applicant’s plans, he runs through the site plan with the Board. He asked the applicant if the patio is being expanded. The applicant states it was expanded a few years ago but no permit for the work could be located. It some how got lost when the work was done. The patio is pavers, including the driveway and walkway paths on the property. Mr. Behrens states that the application is pretty straight forward. In terms of relief there are three variances; (1) Lot or building coverage, the Borough permits 25% and its at the maximum threshold as its developed now and the pergola would expand that to 27.9%, the height of the pergola is about 10 feet, the borough maximum height requirement for an accessory structure is 12 feet; (2) impervious or improved lot coverage, the Borough allows 35%, existing condition is 43. 4% and (3) rear yard setback as the pergola is technically attached to the house it becomes part of the principal building and the Borough requires 25% setback and its at 19.92%. The yard is fenced in. The lot is 7,700 s.f. the 2 Borough allows a minimum of 7,500 s.f. Statutory criteria that needs to be met in order for the Board to approve the application is (1) demonstration as to whether or not there is a hardship (i.e. lot is undersized, certain impacts that prevent the applicant improving it in a way he wants to improve it); (2) is there any public benefit being proposed. Mr. Behrens hands it over to the Board. Mr. Krey asks how long the existing patio has been in its present location. The applicant states about two years. Ms. Boland asked the applicant how large the expansion of the patio was. The applicant responded about 240ish s.f. Ms. Boland states that, that would bring him down to about 40% which is a coverage the Board is more comfortable approving. Mr. Feffer wanted to know if the applicant thought when choosing the pergola, if thy consider one that had the retractable models. The applicant respond that they rust. Mr. Feffer inquired as to water run off also. The applicant states that they have no ponding in their yard when it rains. He Mayor addressed the lost building permit for the expansion of the patio. The applicant stated that the Building Department said it was lost/misplaced. They proceeded with the job based on a verbal conversation about the permit between his builder and the Building Department. The Mayor states that there was no inspection, there was no permit that was received. He also stated to the applicant that he really does not know if his builder actually applied for is a permit, to which the applicant stated no, that he knows that he did. The Mayor is concerned that this happened. The issue is the work was done without a permit as far as they know and there was no inspection, and they also went over the boundaries of what would be allowable, and you are above what the Board typically likes to say yes to. Mr. Mehrman, sates that the applicant submitted a survey that was unsigned and unsealed and dated July 13, 2022, he wanted to know why the applicant did that. The applicant explained that Ed had stated that the existing survey was old, and he told Ed that some improvements had been made on the property so he went back to the initial survey company and asked them to do a new survey. Mr., Mehrman discusses the survey at length. He feels the new survey just shows the real picture of the property from 2015. Mr. Mehrman explains that the issue being in 2015 the outline that is shown on this survey probably conformed to the 35% allowable so, the real issue today is the difference between then and what the applicant is asking for today which includes the expansion. Mr. Mehrman states that 619 feet above the 35% that was original and conforming which brings it to 43%. Mr. Mehrman reiterates that the Board does not like to go above 40%. Mr. Mehrman states that the applicant is going to have to propose how he get back to under 40%. Mr. Behrens and Mr. Flores calculate numbers. 314 s.f. is what is calculated. Mr. Arakelian asks the applicant if he would be willing to lower his number to 314 s.f. to get to 40%. Mr. Arakelian suggests he says yes. The Borough engineer will look at the drainage and the applicant will have to abide but what the engineer suggests. The Mayor speaks to the water issues that affect the Borough. Ms. Sinley wants to confirm that the applicant is okay with removing the patio to a maximum of 314 s.f. The applicant asks if a permit is necessary for this project to which the Board states – yes. Motion to approve – Mr. Mehrman makes a motion that the Board approve the requested variances with the understanding that the maximum improved lot coverage will not exceed 40% and that Mr. Costa’s office review the drainage and the applicant will conform with the recommendations of the Borough Engineer for water management and the three variances reduction of the pavers to maximum improved lot coverage of 40%; agree to Mr. Costa’s drainage review and potential installation of seepage pits, and obtaining a building permit; Second – Mayor Papaleo. Roll call – Mr. Mayor – yes; Mr. Caslin -yes; Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman – 3 yes; Mr. Feffer- yes; Mr. Krey – yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes; and Mr. Busteed -yes. The Motion passes. 3-minute recess. 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. Continued from 7/13/22. Meeting begins again at 8:15. Roll call – Ms. Boland – here, Mr., Mehrman – here; Mr. Feffer – here; Mr. Krey – here; Mr. Arakelian – here; Mr. Esposito and Mr. Busteed – here. Mr. Esposito is no eligible to vote n the application, but he can participate in the hearing because he missed the last meeting. Everyone else is eligible to vote. The Mayor & Council are excused at this portion of the meeting because it is a D variance and Mayor and council members of this Board are not to eligible to participate in a D variance and that is why he has been excused. Mr. DelVecchio states that this meeting was to have the neighbors/witnesses appear and begin their testimony. He announces that he and Mr. Barrett have discussed the matter and they have reached a compromise that will satisfy both his client and Mr. Barrett’s client in terms of a development and conditions that would protect against certain conditions appearing. Mr. DelVecchio shares the conditions with the Board and then Mr. Voght will walk through those conditions on the plan with the Board. Each Board member has been given the settlement terms which were requested and agreed upon. (1) A request made was that there would be no employee parking on the bank/school property by Dunkin Donut employs; (2) a request was made that a fence be placed in between the proposed common property line between the Dunkin Donuts and the bank which would essentially prevent cross pedestrian traffic from happening between those lots; that the use of the music school be as testified to, that there would not be any parties or gathering, there would be no more than 12 students in attendance at the music school at any given time; (3) it was agreed that there would be a look back provision relating to traffic. Specifically, within six months of the applicant getting the CO for the Dunkin Donuts, there is a traffic condition that arises from the operation of the Dunkin Donuts, the bank and the music school which causes traffic to back up the applicant would reappear before the Board to review and discuss possible solutions to that condition; (4) they will be moving the handicapped parking spaces that were proposed along the side property line to the rear of the building, hey have proposed a railing or fence to be constructed along the side of the property perpendicular to Kinderkamack Road so you cannot get to the building from the drive aisle; (5) the applicant is proposing a 30 inch shrub edge across the front of the property. He labels the settlement which is sheet 006 prepared with a date of September 14, 2022. Mr. DelVecchio recalls Mr. Voght. Mr. Voght speaks regarding Exhibit A35 labeled landscaping plan exhibit dated 9/14/22. He recaps as to what Mr. DelVecchio just stated to the Board. They are moving the handicapped 4 spots to the rear of the building. The sidewalk that connected (inaudible) as well as to the Kinderkamack sidewalk they are moving that adjacent with eastern side of the building connect that pathway back to the ADA stalls as well as the remainder of the parking area back to prevent any cross access from the sidewalk into that drive aisle or vice versa they will be putting in a railing across the front. They will connect that sidewalk with the existing sidewalk which brings you into the building. They are going to continue a hedge row from where the terminus of the railing is across the entire walkway in front of the bank and music school building. They are proposing a minimum of a 4-foot-high fence between the two properties – on the bank and music school properties, it would be a solid fence that would screen both properties and prevent any cross-pedestrian access. Mr. Behrens does not feel that any of the improvements would trigger a need for a variance. He has no objections to the changes. Mr. Arakelian states that the Board received an email from the Shade Tree Commission asking for specific things and it was read into record and the applicant has already agreed to them. The fence will be relocated to accommodate the planting. He can possibly slide the fence more to the bank side and the remaining 6 o 7 feet of green space would be paintings. Motion to open to the public – So made – Mr. Mehrman; Second – Mr. Feffer. Mr. Barrett reminded Mr. DelVecchio of an item that he neglected to state relating to the settlement agreement, that being, if there were ever a change use for the bank or school the applicant would come back to the Board to secure approval for those uses in that building. Pat Byrne, 88 Spring Valley Avenue, River Edge. She thinks the drive thru will be a nightmare. She was concerned about that and the hours of operation for the Dunkin Donuts. Mr. Arakelian addresses her concerns by stating that they have had traffic engineers testify at length regarding her concerns. Mr. DelVecchio explains to her that the hours for the Dunkin Donuts were changed to accommodate the neighbors. The store is open from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and the drive thru is opened at 6:00 a.m. Ms. Byrne wanted to know when deliveries will be made. She was advised that they will happen after 9:00 a.m. Motion to close to the public – So made – Mr. Mehrman; Second – Mr. Esposito. Mr. Keenan Hughes is recalled to go over the enhanced burden of proof on the Medici issue. Mr. DelVecchio wants Mr. Hughes to discuss the enhanced quality of proof required under the Medici test for a D variance. He asks that Mr. Hughes tell the Board the analysis he undertook and the conclusion he reached after doing so. He states how can the Board reconcile granting a use variance in this instance without substantially impairing the zoning ordinance and the Master Plan of the community. There was an amendment to re-examination of the Master Plan adopted in May of this year, did identify drive thru facilities and uses as a zoning issue for the governing body to potentially address. The document specifically recommended that “the ordinance should be amended to more clearly articulate such prohibition or establish where, for what uses such facilities might be appropriate in commercial zones.” He states that based on his analysis and testimony regarding the negative and positive criteria, he believes the Board can find that this site is with respect to the positive criteria, suitable for the proposed use and also under the negative criteria there is no evidence of any substantial detrimental impacts to the surrounding area. He also reiterates that a Dunkin Donuts already exists on this property and to their knowledge there has not been any significant problems or issues with that operation on the property for that period of time. He believes that provides the Board 5 with an additional reason to look at this application specifically and allow it to grant this variance without substantially impairing the intent of the ordinance and the Master Plan. Questions are opened to the Board Ms. Boland asks about the privacy fence and the landscaping. She suggested a see-through fence. She believes an open fence would be more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. DelVecchio states that the applicant will do whatever works for the Shade Tree Commission and the Board. Mr. Mehrman addresses some the changes that were agreed to at the last meeting. Mr. DelVecchio states that if the Board is going to act favorable toward the applicant, they would submit a Resolution Compliance Plan that will pick up all of the conditions. Motion to open to the public – So made - Mr. Mehrman; Second – Mr. Esposito. Motion to close to the public – So made – Mr. Feffer; Second – Ms. Boland. Motion on this application – So made – Mr. Mehrman; Motion regarding Second – Ms. Boland - 915 Kinderkamack LLC a/k/a Dunkin Donuts – Block 206 Lot 4 request for a drive thru Dunkin Donuts facility and a sub-division of the new lot being the existing building with a bank and a music school. The memorialization of this will be based on the Resolution Compliance Plan and upon the memorialization signatures that the submittal will be fully reviewed by the Borough Engineer’s office and being applicable. Ms. Stinley states the following: Garbage collection will occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; The applicant agrees to comply with the streetscape ordinance; Agrees to comply with the Borough Engineer, Board Planner, Shade Tree and Police report recommendations; Agrees to comply with storm water review of the Borough Engineer during the soil movement process; Agrees to save mature trees to the greatest extent possible or replace or fill in what the Shade Tree Commission requires; The applicant agrees to remove the bamboo on the property and replace with alternate screening or landscaping which will be install from day one; The bus stop shelter, and trash can will be replaced with new if possible and the applicant will consider grading to avoid pooling at the location; The applicant agrees to install directional signs on the property as approved by the Bergen County Planning Board; The applicant agrees to a six month look back for noise, lighting, traffic, landscaping and if odors become a problem; The applicant agrees that of traffic becomes an issue they will hire a police officer and the Board may require post opening traffic study; Applicant agrees to comply with ordinance and state Residential Noise Control Act; With respect to the Dunkin Donuts The hours of operation will be from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for in store and 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for the drive thru ; There will be no frying or cooking; 6  The rooftop will be screened on all four sides; The walkup window will include a railing around the drive aisle side and Kinderkamack side for safety; Illuminated signs on the property will be lit from 4:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.; The order board sound will comply with Borough ordinances and state noise code; Lighting will be dimmable and poles and stalls will be capped at 15 feet; There will be signage installed for employee parking; Trash bins will be installed for the outdoor seating area; An EV charging stall will be located in the northwest corner of the parking lot; The retaining wall will be segmental block; The retaining wall will meet building code requirements; The fence above the retaining wall will be set back at least three feet from the wall for landscaping; Deliveries will be made only during off peak hours after 9:00 a.m., no overnight deliveries and deliveries will be made by a Sprinter type van; With respect to the bank and music school There will be bollards installed to protect the canopy; There will be soundproofing at the music school; Schools hours will be Sunday through Monday – closed; Tuesday – Friday 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.; Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The application also incudes a request for soil movement and the applicant agrees to submit a Resolution Compliance Plan subject to Board Engineer review. Based on the settlement conditions reached, the applicant agrees that no employee parking for the Dunkin Donuts will be located at the bank or music school lot; There will be four-foot-high solid privacy fence installed or chain link fence with plantings installed subject to Shade Tree review between the two lots to prevent pedestrian crossing; There will be no alleged gatherings at the music school and no more than twelve students at one time; There will be a look back for traffic up to six months for the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the Dunkin Donuts and if it becomes a problem the applicant will reappear before the Board; 7  The applicant agrees to change to location of the ADA spaces on the music school/bank lot and install a fence and shrubs to prevent shortcutting and drop offs at the corner lot of Kinderkamack Road; If the bank or music school changes use other than what is approved tonight, then the applicant will have to come back before the Board. Mr. Arakelian thanks everyone for their hard work on this application. Roll call vote Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Mehrman – yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Krey – yes; Mr,. Arakelian - yes; Mr. Esposito is ineligible; Mr. Busteed - yes. The motion passes. Motion to adjourn – So Moved – Mr. Feffer; Second – Mr. Esposito. Meeting adjourned. 8 9