River Edge NJ Land Use Board

BOROUGH OF RIVER EDGE LAND USE BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 13, 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 - Excused Mr. Mehrman – Excused James Arakelian - Present Lou Grasso – Absent Ryan Gibbons – Excused Michael Krey – Present Eileen Boland – Present Dario Chinigo – Present Gary Esposito – Present Bruce Feffer – Present (Mr. Esposito is seated to vote) ALSO PRESENT: Marina Stinley, Esq. and Mr. Behrens. Approval of Minutes – 3/9/2022 Motion – So moved Mr. Feffer; Second – Mr. Esposito. All in favor – Minutes are approved. 3/23/2022 Motion - So moved; Second – Mr. Arakelian. All in favor – Minutes are approved. Memorializations Hernan Green – 199 Bogert Road, Block 1207, Lot 30. Retaining walls. – Application has been dismissed without prejudice. Motion – So made – Mr. Krey; Second – Mr. Feffer. Roll call – (Only those eligible to vote) Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Krey – yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes. Motion passes. Completeness Review Mr. Maietta , 421 The Fenway, Block 909, Lot 13. Proposed side yard setback variance. Applicant advises the Board that he is looking to put a small mudroom addition on the side of his residence. Mr. Behrens deems the application complete, and the Board has jurisdiction to hear the application. Ms. Stinley deems the application complete, and the Board has jurisdiction to hear the application. Motion for completeness – So made – Mr. Krey; Second – Mr. Feffer. 1 Roll call – Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Krey – yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Councilman Chinigo – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes. Motion passes. Nilufer Guleyupoglu, 257 Wayne Avenue, Block 907, Lot 22. Pool and patio which would increase the improved lot coverage to a non-conforming size. Applicant advises the Board that she is looking to install an inground swimming pool. Mr. Behrens addresses the Board and advises that the application is complete, and the Board has jurisdiction to hear the application Ms. Stinley deems the application complete and the Board has jurisdiction to hear the application. Motion for completeness – So made – Ms. Boland; Second – Mr. Esposito. Roll call – Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Krey – yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Councilman Chinigo – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes. Motion passes. New Business Mr. Maietta , 421 The Fenway, Block 909, Lot 13. Proposed side yard setback variance. The applicant is sworn in. The applicant’s contractor is also sworn in. Mark Bonardi, 324 Taft Road, River Edge, NJ. He is a licensed contractor in the State of New Jersey. The Board accepts Mr. Bonardi’s qualifications. The applicant is looking to put an addition on the southside of his residence which is the side entrance of his home. The applicant is looking to construct a mudroom. The size of the addition is 6’3 x 9’.5 on the enclosed area and the stairwell is another 3’ x 6’3; outside stairs going up to the enclosure is 6’. The addition part itself is about 9’ x 5 ½ and the width is consistent with 6’ 3 1/2. Mr. Behrens addresses the Board. He notes that it is only a one-story addition and that the development otherwise conforms with the Borough’s ordinances which apply to the property. The property also has a somewhat narrow lot width as to what is required. The lot width is 69’ where a minimum of 75’ is required so there is a hardship to some extent regarding that requirement. The deviation that the Board is looking at requires a side yard setback of 6’ and the one corner is 4’.9 feet from the side lot line. Mr. Arakelian opens to the Board. Ms. Boland wanted to know if it is 12 feet or 15 feet that’s required because then it requires another variance. The Behrens explains the graduated side yards upper most one is 18 feet and the lower is 12 feet so the combined is 15 feet, but they are actually at 16 feet. Ms. Boland questions the measurements and she just wants it on record so the applicants don’t have a problem later on. Mr. Behrens states that the proposal only impacts the one side yard but with respect to the combined (Ms. Boland interjects a comment as to the fact if the Board approves it down the road, if they come in and they say you have another variance and you didn’t have approval for it) Mr. Behrens suggests they note that for the record. Ms. Stinely states that for the one side yard individual and then also the variance can be for both. Ms. Stinley inquired of the applicants to where they are putting the addition, if there is a fence or any landscaping. The contractor responds that there is nothing there and nothing is proposed. Motion to open to the public -So made – Councilman Chinigo; Second – Ms. Boland. All in favor aye. Motion to close to the public – So made – Ms. Boland; Second- Councilman Chinigo. All in favor aye. Motion to approve the application – Councilman Chinigo moves to accept the application with the changes as discussed adding the side yard setback; Second – Mr. Esposito. Roll call – Ms. Boland – yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Krey – yes; Mr. Arakelian – yes; Councilman Chinigo – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes. Application is approved. Nilufer Guleyupoglu, 257 Wayne Avenue, Block 907, Lot 22. Pool and patio which would 2 increase the improved lot coverage to a non-conforming size. The applicant is sworn in. Angelo Onello, civil engineer is sworn as applicant’s professional. The applicant gives the Board an overview of the project being presented. She explains that the existing patio will ne reduced and that an existing fire pit will be removed. She presents the Board with Exhibit A1 9 sheets a collection of photographs and schematics drawn by the applicant and taken by the applicant. She explains what each photo is a picture of. Her neighbor to the right will be the most affected by the project as the chain link fence will be rolled back, and the bushes removed. Once the project is complete the fence will be put back and the applicant will be replacing the landscape with arborvitae trees. Mr. Onello addresses the Board. Original plan date was June 29, 2021,revised through March 8, 2022, which entails zoning chart, lot coverage as well as the existing conditions of the residence its driveway and rear patio as well as the proposed swimming pool within the center of the rear yard. There is a two-car garage, and the driveway slightly varies between 18 to 20 feet wide. He believes the driveway should remain as is. It’s the width of two parking spaces. The hardship is that the lot coverage is already over. The rear patio – the plan is to square it off, take out the fire pit and the strip of pavers. The pool is called a Hampton style pool. Its de minimis when it comes to storm water run-off. The professional describes water run off and the lack of any pooling of water. The pool is 14 x 28 (392 square feet). Pool pumping would most likely be done out on the side yard onto Wayne, Avenue onto the driveway which is in line with pumping out pools or cleaning. Removing the pavers will disconnect from the pool from the patio. That was the patio touching the pool its going to be, patio ends, then some lawn, then the coping, then the pool. He tells the Board that the property is incredibly well kept. The professional believes the benefits outweigh the detriments. The benefits would be that it would help with storm water runoff. Mr. Behrens addresses the professional. He wanted to know the figure of the reduced patio. The professional advises 88 square feet. Currently the patio is at 494 them being reduced by 88 square feet to 406 square feet. Mr. Behrens asks about the topography on the site. He asks about sloping. The professional advises that the property is quite flat with a few valleys in the rear of the lot. He advises that there is a about a 10-inch slope from left to right over 60 to 75 feet. Mr. Behrens advises that the facts are that the property is developed as it is the existing improved lot coverage is 39. 9%which is above the 35% which is allowed. Mr. Behrens advises that he looked at file on hand that is in the Building Department and there was a certain size patio that was permitted which essentially brought it up to the current number. It now brings this up to 45%, so the Board will need some justification as to why this is going to 45% versus the permitted 35% so Mr. Behrens was wondering if there was a little wiggle room to try to bring this closer to at least the current condition of 39.9%. The patio currently in place was previously approved. The Board is now addressing the applicant. Mr. Feffer addresses the drainage issue when it comes to pools. He addresses the professional’s comment as to the pool acting as a storage area for rain up to 6 inches. What happens when the pool is covered? What mitigation measures are in place to offset the loss of soil in that area? Mr. Onello advises that the covers are not waterproof, water falls on it and it seeps through. There is back and forth theories on water seepage, amounts of rainwater, type of storm etc. Mr. Krey speaks to the existing patio. He asks if the applicant made the decision to make patio larger. The applicant advised she did but that was done in 2010. Mr. Krey points out that the applicant got variance to put in a large patio 3 which took them to 40% coverage and now the applicant wants to put in a pool and go to 45% on a lot that is already oversized so there is not a hardship on lot size. He sees no hardships regarding this application, so he would like to see a positive as to this project. Mr. Onello addresses Mr. Krey and advises that the applicant would be willing to remove 3 feet on the right side which will be a benefit to the right-side neighbor. The rear patio is now 494 with the amendment reducing it 3 feet from the side bringing it down to 360 and bringing the impervious coverage down to 44 ½%. Mr. Onello believes the benefit is removing impervious areas from the existing patio to make it smaller, there will be extensive landscaping to the right side which is not there right now and the pool water surface itself acting as storage. He speaks to the landing coming in and out of a sliding glass door makes it a good thing especially in a pool area. Mr. Behrens wants to clarify a few things. First, the ordinance provision actually is not impervious coverage, its improved lot coverage which has to do with the manmade features that cover the land for the purposes of providing green space, light air and open space so he believes the focus should not be so much on impervious coverage but how much of the land is actually developed. Mr. Behrens advises that what is needed is a meaningful compromise. He believes the applicant needs to come up with something. In terms of a meaningful public benefit that was offered given the way the property drains, its sloped and it sounds like there may be water that goes from left to right and may be impacting the property to the right, maybe the installation of a French drain would be beneficial and public benefit. Mr. Onello addresses downspouts that are existing and a drywell in the backside of the yard, he suggests putting a drain at the low point along the right-hand side to help with any runoff. He suggested that if the Board were to grant the application that they put into the Resolution that the applicant would be willing to have the Town Engineer inspect the drywell to verify its capacity. As far as upsizing the drywell he doesn’t know what the Borough would get out of that because the actual tangible impervious is kind of the same, however allowing the lawn areas to go into the drywell would definitely provide a direct benefit. He believes that an amendment to the plan should allow a surface inlet opening either aside the drywell with a small catch basin with a pipe that goes into the drywell or if the drywell is located in a suitable location put the drainage inlet directly a top of the drywell (i.e. inlet grate). Ms. Boland speaks again to lot coverage and asks the applicant if she would consider reducing the size of the pool. The applicant has already reduced the size of the pool from 15 x 30 to 14 x 28 in an effort try to get it closer to conformance. Councilman Chinigo echo’s what has been said especially regarding the 45% number, and he is not willing to get to that threshold especially because he is not hearing any compromises and he also did not hear anything about any benefits to the community and he also did not hear anything about a hardship. Mr. Arakelian will withhold his questions and comments until after the Board hears from the public. Motion to open to the public - So made – Mr. Feffer; Second -Mr. Esposito. Peter Linke, 261 Wayne Ave., River Edge. He is the neighbor on the right-hand side. He has no objection to a pool. His major concern is the water issue. His backyard has been flooded a number of times. He points out that his home is at the lowest point of all the homes in the surrounding area. He stated that he did not know the size of the pit right now, but if he had to guess he would guess 1,000 and in his estimation that is not enough because the whole area is clay, and the water does not percolate into the ground very quickly. In the rear of his yard, he has a pump that pumps the water up because the way the houses are, they are lower than street level especially in the backyard. His major concern is where is the backwash going to go? Mr. Onello explains where the backwash will go. It will pump it out onto the driveway and onto the street. He also wanted 4 to know if any more trees would be removed. Mark Peyko, 129 Chestnut Street, Emerson. Mr. Linke’s son-in-law stated he was there to support his father-in-law and to make sure he got all his questions answered. Mary Napoleon-Suess 247 Wayne Avenue, River Edge. Her concern also is water, but as she learned this evening the pool filter and other equipment will be very close to her property. Mr. Onello walks Mrs. Napoleon-Suess through the plans that are displayed. She is happy with his explanations. Ms. Evers, 229 Wayne Avenue, River Edge. She also has the similar concerns with flooding and pooling of water and wants to make sure that if the application is approved that the proper steps are put in place to control water. Mr. Arakelian explains that should the application go forward it automatically triggers a review from the Borough Engineer who then does his water calculations on the property and if the property requires additional remediation, he will enforce it. The witness is happy with Mr. Arakelian’s responses to her questions. Gianna Kelly lives directly behind the applicant 225 Beech Drive No., River Edge. Again, her concern is water as they have a lot of pooling in their yard when it rains, and she was happy to hear that extra drainage would be going in. They have regraded their property and that did not help at all. So, the pooling is their biggest concern because they do not want it to get worse. She has no issues with them having a pool and would be happy if they get their pool. Motion to close to the public. So moved – Councilman Chinigo; Second- Mr. Krey. Mr. Arakelian now speaks regarding his concerns. He sees a decision has to be made. Its either the pool or the deck. He suggests that Mr. Onello take some time to speak with his client. Quick recess was taken. Everyone that was present before is still present after recess. Mr. Arakelian reiterates the water concern, and he also reiterates the Board’s position on lot coverage. Mr. Onello advises the Board that after speaking with his client he would like to point out some additional amendments specifically to the benefit of the public good. He suggests removing the current patio which is 494 square feet with one that is 234 square feet. The patio will be further away from the Linke property, lawn and landscaping would be put in the patio’s previously place with an additional drainage inlet to directly catch any runoff from the patio which has no drainage inlet now and from there into the drywell which he assumes is 1,000 gallons. He goes through all the ways the applicant will deal with water issues. Mr. Onello brings up a letter sent by Costa Engineering which says nothing about drainage concerns. He goes through the letter with Mr. Behrens. Mr. Behrens goes through the following numbers based off of the lot coverage table on the engineer’s pool plan. The house 2,222 square feet; driveway and front walk, 790 square feet; the rear patio is now being reduced to 234 square feet; Mr. Onello states that they would like to make the pool smaller at 14 x 26 (bringing the square footage from 480 to 452). Mr. Behrens adds up the numbers, the house, the driveway, the new rear patio that is 234 square feet, the proposed pool which is 452 square feet which equals 3,698 square feet which translate to a lot coverage of 42.1% improved lot coverage. Mr. Feffer wants to make sure that the proposal includes the landscaping mentioned in the area where the patio has been reduced. Ms. Stinley relays the following: the applicant is amending the application to request an improved lot coverage variance up to 42.1%. The applicant proposes to remove the existing patio entirely and rebuild it to the size of 13’ x 18’ or approximately 234 square feet. The applicant proposes to move the location of the patio away from the right lot line equal distance with the edge of the doorway. Additional drainage inlet will be installed to directly collect drainage from the patio and be directed into the drywell. An additional inlet will be added to the drywell and landscaping will be installed along the right side of the property to provide screening and additional runoff. The applicant proposes to reduce the pool size to 14 x 26 including coping to a total of 452 square feet. The applicant will replace the fence along the property line and will comply with Borough Engineer recommendations regarding drainage and any additional 5 mitigation that might be required. With this additional information a Motion is made to open to the public. So made – Councilman Chinigo; Second – Mr. Krey. Mr. Linke of 261 Wayne Avenue asked if the Borough Engineer actually looks at water runoff and things of that nature. Ms. Stinley explains that when an applicant requests the soil movement permit, the Borough Engineer does a review at that time and will recommend any drainage mitigation that needs to be included and then the applicant would have to comply or if they don’t want to follow those recommendations, they would have to either come back before the Board or change their application. Mr. Linke asked if he would look at his property at that time also. Mr. Arakelian suggests Mr. Linke call Mr. Costa and tell him to contact the neighbors. Motion to close to the public – So made – Mr. Chinigo; Second- Mr. Esposito. Motion on the application – Mr. Feffer – So made - Mr. Chinigo addresses the room stating that he appreciates the concessions that have been made by the applicant, but he still thinks the 42.1% is still a large number especially in light of the size of the house. This not a very small property, this is a large property and a very large house. So, Councilman Chinigo has not seen the benefits to the community, and he has not seen any hardship to the applicant so for that reason he personally would not be inclined to support the application and he wanted to be put on the record as such. Second – Mr. Krey. Roll call – Ms. Boland (struggles with the application as well, but with the concessions and the fact that people like to have pools) – yes; Mr. Feffer –(tells applicant that the Board does not take this lightly but commends how flexible the applicant was I making concessions and consideration of issues raised by your neighbors) yes; Mr. Krey – (has problem with the fact that it is a larger size lot and the Board holds people with smaller lots to strict guidelines, he appreciates the applicants concessions but cannot support the application)- No; Mr. Arakelian – (defers until the end); Councilman Chinigo – No; Mr. Esposito – yes. Mr. Arakelian – would have liked the applicant to come back to the Board advises that she was eliminating the patio completely or at least leaving it to the step, the numbers are still above what his threshold normally is, however he did not want to leave a deadlocked Board, so reluctantly and he hopes that Mr. Onello does the right thing for the neighbors because if not there is going to be an issue. Mr. Arakelian votes yes. Motion passes. Ms. Stinley requests of Mr. Onello that the exhibits with the markups be sent to Ed Alter. Ms. Stinley wanted to vote for an acting secretary so the Board can sign the Resolution – Mr. Krey was appointed acting secretary for the meeting. All members were in favor. Motion to close the meeting – So made – Mr. Feffer; Second – Ms. Boland. All in favor aye - many opposed any abstained. There being none – the meeting is adjourned. 6