Special Session Land Use Board Meeting

BOROUGH OF RIVER EDGE LAND USE BOARD MEETING MINUTES ZOOM MEETING SPECIAL MEETING WORK SESSION JANUARY 18, 2022 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 – Absent Eileen Boland – Present Dario Chinigo – Present Gary Esposito – Present Bruce Feffer – Present ALSO PRESENT: Marina Stinley, Esq., Thomas Behrens Leading off where the Board left off at the December 8, 2021 work session. The Board started talking about pools and then they went into lot coverage and they stayed focused on that. There was a meeting of the sub-committee on this issue January 17, 221 regarding lot coverage. Mr. Caslin asks the sub-committee to take over the meeting. Ms. Boland advises that the sub- committee did focus the bulk of their meeting on lot coverage as this is the issue the Board has been facing with a variety of the applications that come before them. Mr. Gibbons prepared a list of lot sizes in the Borough of River Edge and there were a number of lots. She called on Mr. Gibbons to explain the different lot sizes to the Board. Mr. Gibbons went into the tax records and found that the amount of homes that were under sized and then he went and looked at the amount of homes that were over sized. He wanted to see how the Board could help the undersized lots achieve what is currently more acceptable in homes today, i.e like having a shed and a deck/patio. Houses 5,000 square feet and under – there is about 145 house more or less. If those properties were to cover their properties as allowed of 35% it would be about 1,750 square feet. Doing some research he found that the average deck was about 300 to 400 square feet. So if the Board where to allow a homeowner an average sized deck (at 400 square feet) and an 8 x 10 shed, that would come out to about 480 square feet. Mr. Gibbons wanted to see how much of an impact that would have and what percentages that brings the Board to. If the Borough would allow a deck and a shed it would bring it to 2,230 and that would result in a 44.6% coverage. He did that math for general numbers as to what the Ordinance projects a 7,500 square foot lot. He did those same numbers 5,500, 6,000, 6, 500 and so forth. As can be seen the percentage goes down obviously because that square foot is less of a percentage on a 7,500 square foot lot as it is on a 5,000 square foot lot. The reason Mr. Gibbons did this was because he wanted to see how the Board can help the undersized lots have what is becoming more acceptable in a home. Again, having a deck and having a shed. He wanted to see if the Board could come up with either an agreement allowing things to happen on an undersized lot or speak with the Mayor and Council regarding some sort of recommendation on coming up with some sort of relief for the houses that are undersized. This generally affects about 1,500 homes in the Borough. The Board has been seeing builders come before them putting a house at 34.99% without a deck, without a shed, without a double driveway and the homeowners need to come before the Board for help at a later date. He would like to come up with a sliding scale that would help the people on undersized lots. He also looked at the over sized lots and the threshold normally being the 40% by the Board of what that increase would be on different size lots in the Borough. Ex. on a 12,000 square foot lot 5% is 600 square feet. Where on an undersized lot 480 square feet is almost 10%. Mr. Gibbons wanted to show the Board how every little foot affects the smaller properties. Mr. Gibbons opens up discussion with the Board as to a possible sliding scale for smaller lots. Mr. Mehrman brings up the issue of driveways and the ability to have two cars in the driveway. So if and when the Board makes a decision on the amount of coverage allowed, the Board would also have to take into account a greater amount of parking coverage. Mr. Gibbons states that because builders come in at 34.99% and leaving nothing else he would like to see some type of language in the ordinance to require them to have either an allowance in the square footage of the lot for an average size deck and require a double wide driveway to prevent the builders from fitting as much house as they can and then leaving the homeowners to fix those things. So finding a way to force the builders in making them have a double wide and either having a deck or patio finished in their plans or not building the property to 35%, building it to 32% or whatever is needed for the buyer not have to come before the Board for a variance to build a bigger house. (Ms. Boland is speaking but she is going in and out bad audio) A two car wide driveway with a 30 foot frontage the committee attributed 600 square feet for a 25/30 driveway figuring the two car wide driveways, the 400 square foot deck/patio, a reasonable walkway 60 square feet would be a 3' x 20' and then the 8' shed leaves 740 square feet reasonably (inaudible) above the 25% building coverage. So taking a 5,000 square foot lot and they max out the building coverage that would be a 1,250 square foot, 25% footprint or 2,500 square foot house which is reasonable plus the 1,140 that brings it up to almost 48% which is obviously very high and that's if the Board is saying the car wide driveway, a reasonable walk and a shed, if the Board made it a one car driveway for the smaller lots that takes away 300 square feet and then you are at 42%. So there could be a 5,000 square foot lot, have reasonable coverage but it would be a one car wide driveway coming in a 41.8 or 42%. (Ms. Boland is going in and out she is inaudible) she is going through lot size scenarios. 6,000 square foot lot came with a double wide driveway at 44% and then a single car wide driveway at 39% making it difficult for the smaller lots. Comments from the Board as follows: Mr. Feffer - Suggests the Board look at two categories of housing one being existing house, and the other being new construction. The reason he feels the Board should separate the conversation is because with new construction there is a serious problem with people buying their homes and not fully understanding what the limitations are on the property they are purchasing. When you have builders building right up to the limit and then buyers -2- being told by the builders and/or brokers that they can put in a deck, a pool etc. He believes it is an injustice to the Buyer as opposed to existing owners who want to add onto their homes they can look into it and find out what the rules are. While he likes the idea of a sliding scale he is not wedded to any particular numbers. As far as new construction he agrees with Mr. Gibbons that there should be certain limitations up front with the builders with restrictions preventing the building of a home all the way up to the limit knowing from experience people want to add to their properties. So the Board either requires the builders to put those features in, i.e. a double wide driveway, patio, deck, etc. or the Board reduces the amount of lot that they can build on and leave it up to a future purchaser to decide whether they want to add those features or not. Mr.. Gibbons agreed and he states that the Borough needs to protect homeowners because they have no clue. Mr. Arakelian concurs with Mr. Gibbons & Mr. Feffer. Ms. Boland concurs with Mr. Feffer that the builder should add a deck or patio to be included as part of the building coverage versus the overall lot coverage, so when the build out the house at 25% that should include a deck or a patio and then the remaining 10% is more towards the driveway and other things because the deck and/or patio or porch is already in the initial 25%. She advises that the current ordinance does mention porches and open decks as building area. That being said, its not unrealistic for new construction to have that as part of the initial 25% building coverage leaving more room for the rest of the coverage. Mr. Caslin inquires as to what the subcommittee perceived as new construction. Ms. Boland stated maybe 25%. No one is married to a specific number yet. He just picked 25% as a barometer (example adding a level to a cape code or something like that would be a minimum of 25%). Mr. Behrens states that things become difficult without a strong definition to discern what is new and what is existing and a lot of times that gets convoluted with the building code where a builder will say this is a alteration its not new construction and then you go in circles whether its new or not so the Board needs something that's not arbitrary and very clear as to what it is and as simple as a calculation as you possibly can have. Mr.Behrens asks if something is classified as new construction would there be a separate coverage figure that they would have to adhere as to existing house. Mr. Behrens wanted clarification as to differentiating between the two. Ms. Boland clarifies for Mr. Behrens whether a deck or patio would then be considered building coverage versus left for the rest of the coverage – its coverage no matter what but being absorbed in the building coverage then it leaves more for the driveways and walkways and then you are not maxing out building and leaving nothing for everything else. Mr. Behrens wonders if having a 5% allowance or they have to reserve 5% total coverage for rear yard amenities which could be a shed, deck, patio pool whatever. Mr. Gibbons was looking at an either or, so you either have to have that done and completed at the end when the buyer has their CO that the buyer has to have a reasonable size deck/patio and the double wide or yes whether it be 5% although on a 5,000 square lot 5% would not be enough, Going off Mr. Gibbons calculation you would need 480ish square feet left for a shed – can the Borough force a double wide on a 50 x 100 lot. The Board continues to discuss different variables that were discussed between the committee. Mr. Chinigo has a concern as to if the Board is talking about allowing all this extra coverage not only the driveways but decks and sheds and homeowners go out and does the work the Borough is facing flooding problems within the Borough which will have to be dealt with in the next several years he is concerned about the impact of these changes would have in the Borough regarding floods. The Mayor concurs that the flooding in the Borough is an issue. Mr. Behrens suggests maybe reserving 5% of the total coverage for rear yard amenities. Mr. Gibbons thinks it should be a either or – you either have to have that done and completed at the end when the buyer gets their CO, they have to have a reasonable size deck/patio and the double wide. So whether it be 5% although on a 5,000 square foot lot 5% would not be enough so going off Mr. Gibbons calculations there would have to be 480ish square feet left. Mr. Behrens suggests that maybe a double-wide not be a −3 - requirement but be an option. He also thinks the issue of a double wide driveway is a double edge sword. If the Board requires them for every lot now there is the elimination of all that green space and by default creating extra impervious coverage and not giving the homeowners the choice. The sweet spot seems to be 18' to 22' for a double wide driveway. Councilman Chinigo has one concern plague (I believe that is what he said) if the Board is talking about allowing all this extra coverage not only the driveways but the decks, patios, sheds etc. The Borough is now facing flooding problems in River Edge. He believes the Board needs some input from someone as to how these possible changes could impact River Edge specifically with the flooding issues. Mayor Papaleo – concurs with Councilman Chinigo. River Edge has flooding problems and they are getting worse. A storm drain built long ago is no longer able to do its job, especially in heavy summer storms. So the board has to be very mindful of this. The Mayor asks the committee to clarify column number 4 -or D; percent of coverage resulting. The committee is talking about 44.60% all the way to 41.40% - is the committee recommending that the Board make those the new standards in the Borough's zoning or is the committee recommending that these would be the maximum numbers as the Board considers. So this would be more of a guideline then a changes in the Borough's ordinance or zoning. Mr. Gibbons responds that for him personally that he just wanted to present this idea to the Board. No one is stating that these would be exact numbers that the Board would want its more this would be the impact. The Mayor re-frames his question by asking if the Board were to change their numbers from the maximum lot coverage of 35% for 5,000 square feet to a larger number and the Borough did that; (example 44.6% or something else). Then what happens is an applicant comes before the Board and they say they need more then 44.6 so, the Mayors thought is that the Borough not change the 35% that is currently the ordinance, but maybe have a gentleman's/ladies agreement that the Board would be a little bit more generous in their understanding without any obligation and of course every land use board every year can reconsider how that is impacting the town given what is going on in the town at the time. So he is not sure whether those numbers would be something the Borough would change by ordinance or not but the other questions regarding the 5% reserve for patio or deck or garage requirement that actually fits modern cars or a double wide driveway, he believes those are things that would move towards some type of ordinance or some type of change from what is in the land use law. Mr. Gibbons throws out a caveat just to add to the previous discussion, his thought was if it was an ordinance with the grid that he prepared, his thought would be for only those two reasons. That the only way an applicant would be able to go to one of those numbers is if it had been adopted would be to add a deck/patio and a shed. He would not want it to be used to add a pool and then the applicant comes back and requests putting in a deck or a shed. Going forward whether its a gentleman's/ladies agreement or an ordinance that if the Board allows these things to be added it is for the “needed things” in 2022. Mr. Behrens cautions the Board about having an unwritten code by which the Board goes by and he believes even sticking to the 40% threshold that the Board has now it could potentially get the Board in trouble at some point in the future. So he suggests that if there is some type of desire or a demonstrate need to increase the permitted coverage it should be done by ordinance or it should just be left and reviewed on a case by case basis with no absolute threshold. Ms. Stinley also advises against unwritten rules that the Board may have as they do review each application individually based on the individual factors and circumstances that arise in each property, and although there are some things similar between properties the Board has to look at each property individually. If the Board wants to have different standards for smaller lots, larger lots and make any changes it has to be in an ordinance, so then the Board can consistently apply all of the rules to all property owners in the Borough. The Mayor asks Ms. Stinley of it would be legal for the Borough to create different lot coverage for different sizes. Ms. Stinley responds – yes. - The Mayor asks another question – If the Board -4- chose to think about a 5% reserve for patios or decks or a garage requirement or a double wide driveway could the Board say any construction which changes the footprint would immediately fall under those requirements. New construction versus renovation. If you leave one wall up its a renovation and he goes on to state that the truth of the matter is that there is a renovation on Howland the residents left one wall up and then the wall fell down , so they went to four walls and they increased the footprint. The Mayor wants to know if its legal to simply say that if residents increase the footprint these reserves, garage requirement and/or double wide would be legal or not. Mr. Berhens states that the technical answer is that you can probably legally do that in practice but he does not know of any town that currently does that. In theory the Board could. Mostly what Mr. Behrens has seen is a straight 35% or whatever the case may be and if you have a lot of a certain size that is what you have to work with and that is it. There is clarification as to new construction versus renovation as to new construction. New construction is like almost every brick is removed wherein an alteration/renovation is a tiny sliver of the foundation remains. Mr. Gibbons thinks the Board has to look at it as a certain percentage whether the footprint changes or the square footage of the home changes and not leave it for that because every builder will figure it out and work around it and the Board also needs to make sure that the current who are taking their capes and building them up because they cannot afford the new construction so they have to do it themselves so the Board has to make sure that they are doing it right and not just the builders. If you increase the home by 25% then then the Board can trigger x, y and z. Mr. Behrens states that technically the Board can do that but it would make the review process more cumbersome. Mr. Behrens wanted clarification as to triggering x,y and z. Would it trigger a lower coverage requirement. Mr. Gibbons explains they would have to have space for a patio, double wide any and all of the things that have spoken about to trigger that to make sure that they are added so that the homeowner or the next owners doesn't come back for a patio. Councilman Chinigo sees lawsuits happening if something like this is implemented. He feels the system that is in place at the moment is an excellent system. When people need to make changes they come before the Board and the Board has worked very hard to give everyone their day and their say to keep River Edge the way it is which is special. If the Board starts allowing extra lot coverages and all the other stuff it looses the character of the Town and he doesn't want the Board to loose sight of that. Mr. Arakelian agrees with Councilman Chinigo. He feels badly that some of the homeowners are being hoodwinked by the builders but he does not feel that making these changes to the land use ordinances that are in place. He feels that the Board should continue to take things on a case by case basis and he agrees that they should hold back from making statements that the Board usually does 40%. He needs attorneys and applicants to know not to expect 40% when they walk through the door. Its on a case by case basis. Mr. Caslin believes the Board has as good a process but also trying to have balance. Balancing the needs of the Borough versus the needs of the residents in terms of trying to do what they want to do to enjoy their own properties. Maybe there is new technology that also can be looked at where there isn't a drainage situation if crushed stone is used for a driveway and its not impervious coverage but it still gets cars off of the street. Mr. Feffer believes that the problem with doing things on a case by case basis causes problems, its creating problems for the Board and its creating problems for the residents. The Board is constantly having applicants come before the Board stating that the Board did it for the last applicant how come it can't be done for me. The applicants do not know what the rules are and with that type of environment you also have people who might go to court stating their neighbor was treated one way and they were treated another way is that? Mr. Feffer suggests to create limits on what builders can build so there is this extra space that's always allowed but the Board doesn't require that it be a patio or a driveway and the Board doesn't say that the applicant has to do a double driveway or you can;t add the bedroom, but there is this extra surplus space in a sense and leave it to the owner how they want to apply that. He believes that having a more rigid system is preferable to doing things case by case, its preferable because it takes the guess work out it and could possibly prevent litigation in the future. So instead of saying -5- well we gave 40% present last time lets give 41% or 39% this time the Board can say its been discussed, these are the rules the Board has adopted , these are the formulas, these are the percentages and now its going to be applied and the Board will apply it consistently across the Board. This makes it easier for the Board and more fair for the residents who come before the Board. There's more predictability in the system. Councilman Chinigo agreed with some of what Mr. Feffer said but he stated that five years from now the Board is going to have the same problem. He strongly believes things should remain the way the are. He believes what the Board has been doing has been working and has been very effective and when applicants say that they are going to sue they will go back and review the You Tube tapes and see the thoughtful discussions that this Board has on every single case that is brought before the Board. Mr. Arakelian stated that he is not aware of any lawsuits in the last 25 years that he has been involved with the Board. Ms. Stinley adds to the discussion so far is possibly considering how the Borough defines lot coverage and improved lot coverage since the Board has the two different numbers – 25% maximum lot coverage and 35% maximum improved lot coverage this is just for the R1 Zone but should the Board limit or expand what is considered lot coverage or improved lot coverage that could cover some of the concerns being raised. Right now the improved lot coverage is defined as – lot area improved with principle and accessory buildings, structures and uses including but not limited to, driveways, parking areas , garages and other man made improvements. Lot coverage definition is defined as – a portion of a lot occupied by buildings, accessory structures not including walkways, driveways, patios and open parking spaces. So already built into the code set lot coverage for building and structures and set improved lot coverage for all the extra things. So maybe that s something the Board may consider how things should be divided up. Mr. Behrens agrees that the definitions could be stronger. River Edge calls it lot coverage other towns call it building coverage; its the dwelling, anything with a roof, sheds, decks and structures. Improved lot coverage which other towns may refer to impervious coverage which aren't necessarily the same. In River Edge it lists a number of things and then anything else man made. Its sort of a catch all – pools, sports courts and anything else that may be perceived as man made and doesn't have many exemptions. The definitions can be looked at, are the numbers correct and the Board can determine that yes this is what they should be or of there is any flexibility. Mr. Behrens notes that the terms are somewhat antiquated. In the whole ordinance the word deck is not included. It needs to be updated on some regard to address modern amenities.  The Mayor asks that if the Borough were to strengthen their definitions and tweak a few things in order for something to get done, who would be responsible for doing that. He asks Mr. Behrens what he would recommend moving forward. He believes he and Ms Stinley can come up with some suggestions in tandem with the subcommittee. Mr. Caslin suggests maybe a quarterly work session to have these types of discussions. He believes they are fruitful and will help to improve things. Mr. Mehrman believes everyone agrees that the Board needs a sliding scale to eliminate any punishment to the smaller lots. One of the stumbling blocks that he sees is implementation, whether the Board comes up with some informal guidelines and apply it that way on a case by case basis and the guidelines do not have to necessarily apply to all people, each member might want to address it for their own outlook and preference and that would be a guideline versus codifying any percentages the Board might come up with. Mr. Mehrman would also like to revise the one wall rule separately even if it just applies to River Edge somehow. Mr. Esposito concurs with what most the members have already said. The Mayor likes the idea of a quarterly work session meeting. Mr. Mehrman requests that the Board members acquaint themselves with the upcoming Dunkin Donuts application, to be prepared and to do their homework. There were no members of the public present for this meeting. Motion to adjourn – So made - Mr. Mehrman; Second – Mr. Gibbons. All in favor – aye. Any opposed any abstained? There being none the meeting is adjourned. -6- .